I don't believe it should be a matter of public opinion as the protection of individual rights should exceed what the majority think.
There's more at stake than individual rights.
Your third point is probably the most troubling aspect of my plan. My preferred outcome would be to completely reform the welfare system and replace it with a guaranteed basic income meaning all individuals would receive a minimum standard of living guaranteed by the government, removing this problem. I do not believe there should be any special tax benefits for couples as per my economies of scale argument above.
You miss the point. Married couples (de facto or otherwise) do not lead an individual life. They view themselves as 'one' so to speak. To treat two peoples 'joined' life on an individual level destroys what marriage is about; which is the joining of two lives for the purpose of being together. Financially, they are intrinsically linked. Dismantling that renders the concept of marriage in the government eyes as blank. It may as well just absolve itself of the responsibility of legislating it in your view.
I'm fine with the tax being done appropriately, but you're heading to a neo-communist view of things. You and JM are literally the extremes of political spectrum.
The counter to your argument is that there should be a stronger emphasis on individual rights and that the state should view individuals in relationships as separate entities. (It would also empower women by providing financial independence reducing the risks of abuse involved in some marriages)
Again, you miss the point. Married couples do not view their financial state as independent of each other. What is the point of marriage if you lead wholly independent and separate lives in everything?
I have some pretty big philosophical differences with your last point. Firstly I do not believe it is the role of the state to differentiate between housemates and couples and to enquire into the love lives of individuals, whether two people are sharing a life together should be irrelevant to the state (though of course not to the people in question). My argument from the civil rights perspective is that people should not be discriminated against from the perspective of sexual orientation, my proposal to deregulate marriage would remove such discrimination and as such it would not undermine that aspect of my argument as the marriage itself is not the issue.
You can't claim that the Government should have no role in determining who married couples are and aren't, and then say it should legally enforce its view of marriage upon people as a civil rights issue. If marriage is so low in the governments view that it should not care who is or is not married, then it should butt out altogether - remove it from law and render its position null on what the definition is.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, mate. Either its a proper civil rights issue, in which case marriage is something different and needs to be protected by the Government, or it isn't a civil rights issue and it steps away to allow people to do what they want, and passes no judgment on what the definition of it is.
