I'm not really buying the argument that government-provided benefits are enough of a "bribe" to be a significant factor for why people are getting married. Indeed, marriage rates (at least in Europe) show a net decline. My guess is that it is primarily an effect of looser social pressure (it is considered normal, even in more conservative areas, to live as a steady couple without being married), which also correlate with a decline of religious attendance.

So the tax-provided incentives are clearly not sufficient to compensate for this decline, and I really doubt they contribute significantly in most cases.

It's well known that government incentives tip the scale in favor of some more marriages. It's the reason the incentives were created in the first place, obviously! But if you can't follow that line of reasoning, you're welcome to read papers that are tangentially related and prove the the point of how strongly influenced by economics/finances marriages are:

http://www.nber.org/c7282.pdf http://www.nber.org/chapters/c3683 http://www.nber.org/papers/w7510

It's also what my Public Economics professor said back in the day in college... and he was a smart dude.

Also, you're ignoring most of the argument - it's not just about the tax incentive - it's about all of the incentives that government licensed marriage creates. Re-read my prior comments throughout this whole discussion if you don't know what I mean.

> It's well known that government incentives tip the scale in favor of some more marriages. It's the reason the incentives were created in the first place, obviously!

It is? First off, the fact that a policy has been put in place is no evidence that it actually works (see also "trickle down economics" and "abstinence-based sex programs"). Secondly, it's difficult to argue about the purpose of the incentives outside of a historical context. The best I've been able to find is regarding the tax part of the incentives: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg145?pg=2 It does not appear to be part of a nefarious plot to get more people married.

> you're welcome to read papers that are tangentially related and prove the the point of how strongly influenced by economics/finances marriages are

After skimming the papers, my understanding is that they demonstrate that for a number of women, the social condition of their prospective husband is a huge motivational factor. That is fine and well, but what does it have to do with the state? I'm sure you could find the same studies regarding unmarried couples. I haven't found any mention of government incentives in them, but I may have overlooked something.

> Also, you're ignoring most of the argument - it's not just about the tax incentive - it's about all of the incentives that government licensed marriage creates. Re-read my prior comments throughout this whole discussion if you don't know what I mean.

You are correct that I focused on the tax incentives, as I see that as the most visible of the government-provided incentives. Let's look at the other benefits you list:

> (taxes, pensions, medical benefits) and implicit (encouraging a social construct through government enforcement of licenses and contracts)

I'm not aware of any pension-related advantage of married couples where I live, and there is certainly no medical benefits in a land of socialized healthcare. Is this a US thing? As for the implicit benefits, I'm not entirely clear on what you mean. Are you objecting to the existence of a legal framework formalizing the rights of each party?