As a side note, I was trying to think like a liberal, and recognize the inherent discrimination that occurs in mutual partnerships. Instead of seeking to enjoy the same benefits of marriage, the left should seek to remove those benefits from the population at large. In order that everyone can be equal.
Think about all the divorces, injustice can occur at every step of the divorce. A poor African-American woman might sign something she can't read and get the bad end of the deal. Mostly white-male-highly-educated-judges will discriminate against minorities and women at every turn.
Instead the left is trying to fight for equality under an injustice system, .....soo that means that they must be doing it for the money.
I actually support your logic to the extent to taxing the hell out of divorce (exemptions should be allowed if you are beaten, your spouse goes crazy, or your spouse gets tricked out on drugs).
If the government is going to participate in social engineering (creating a tax haven for married individuals), they should engage in social engineering to discourage divorce. The government is missing out on a huge cash cow here. All those broken civil unions could fund efforts to reapply social responsibilities to the individual [tracking down of dead beat dads for example].
As a side note [not here to make a point just an interesting story], a cousin of mine was brought in by the state human services department. He was interviewed and questioned about his past with a woman. He also had DNA swabs done. He later found out that he was the father of her child. The mother also found that out about the same time, apparently her sexual history was not really clear enough to determine the father of the child. The child is now in the state's custody and they might try to get money from my cousin, who is also a drug addict and has not had a steady job since I can remember.
Those are my wild arguments for and against.
"...This lesser transience confers greater simplicity on the legal and tax code books, therefore leading to less confusion and less administration costs.
In short: committed romantic relationships are exceedingly common and enable a special sort of income/expense partnership. The combination of these two factors encourages their general representation in tax law."
Hmm..Less administration cost.
Maybe but wouldn't the administrative cost of divorce cancel out many of those benefits, and use up valuable resources [judges] re-allocating those shared assets and responsibilities.
It is kinda like this, why put forth the effot of endorsing somthing when you are going to have to spend more time undoing what you have done.