Married people enjoy benefits in the eyes of the law.
Of course the commitment of those involved is the most important part of a marriage, but given the way our society works, the legal rights are also quite important.
Of course the commitment of those involved is the most important part of a marriage, but given the way our society works, the legal rights are also quite important.
But a lot of the other stuff having to do with tax benefits...I'm not too crazy about. The government is notorious for doling out tax benefits to activities they want to promote. Like the mortgage interest deduction. The government wants to promote home ownership so they created that to incentivize people buy homes. That's arguably the most popular tax break out there, but all it does is give preference to how you spend your money. Spend it on something the government approves of, and you get a tax break. Similar story with child tax credits, dependent care credits, etc. They are basically rubber stamping certain life choices. And the effect is that people who neglect or outright refuse to engage in these choices/expenditures end up paying more in taxes, all else being equal.
It's a much more culturally secular entity, and can defined better. For example, two people who live together long enough can be declared in a civil union, this way, someone can get spousal benefits even if they don't go through the process of getting married, which is more fair, I think.
'Marriage' is something cultural and religious. People can call themselves married, or not, it's not legally relevant.
You go to City Hall to register your partnership.
You go to Church (or whatever) to get married.
In the United States, they are legally different concepts, with marriage conferring more rights to the couple. Since Obergefell v. Hodges, civil unions are not really used.
In most countries which implemented them, that's broadly correct, yeah. In some countries there were also constitutional issues; in Ireland we had to change our constitution to permit same-sex marriage, for instance, so we had civil unions in the mean time.
In practice, though, there were lots of small unintended legal differences. Marriage has been around since before any modern society, and it weaves itself into laws and regulations. The campaign for equal marriage in Ireland found something like a thousand legal differences between civil unions and marriages, mostly essentially accidental. They're a mess and should be avoided if possible.
Civil unions were largely implemented as an alternative to marriage, usually only for same-sex couples, either because granting same-sex marriage was too contentious, unconstitutional, or similar reasons. And they worked like marriage; they were generally contracted just like a civil marriage. Generally, when countries permit same-sex marriage, they also remove any existing civil union laws. We had them in Ireland for a few years until the constitution was changed to allow same-sex marriage, for instance; after that the law was changed to forbid any new civil unions.
Civil marriage already is a civil union; distinct-in-name "civil unions" are a separate (if sometimes nominally equal) civic institution to keep same-sex unions segregated-in-name from opposite-sex unions.
> For example, two people who live together long enough can be declared in a civil union, this way, someone can get spousal benefits even if they don't go through the process of getting married
"The process of getting married" basically exists to (1) document the state of union to aid in dispute resolution, (2) provide notice of an opportunity for basic review for legal barriers to the union (which now are basically consanguinity and already being in a similar union with someone else), and (3) provide clear documentation of consent from both parties to.the formation of the union.
The less formal form you describe (common-law marriage) coexisted alongside formal "registered" marriage (and, arguably, is even more linked to religion than the formal kind, since it's a direct product of the Christian doctrine that sacramental marriage is created between the partners alone, with the Church and/or State functioning as additional witnesses, not the creators of the state), but has increasingly fallen out of favor because it creates a lack of clarity about legal rights and obligations.
It also would represent a much larger change than extending existing marriage benefits.