Agree.
I don't think the issue should be legislated on until the public is provided an opportunity to cast its vote. It at the very least gives an appreciation for what the public thinks before the decision is made. The public should be allowed to voice its approval / opposition.
I don't believe it should be a matter of public opinion as the protection of individual rights should exceed what the majority think.
If I'm understanding you correctly, this is the stupidest thing I've ever read. So if I die, my wife has no rights to my estate and is not provided special benefits as a widow? The special benefits include things like subsidising lower socio economic couples with rebates as part of welfare. If you remove special benefits etc, you'd get tax rorts through loopholes as one part of a couple who earns a low income could access benefits despite the other part of the couple being a high income earner.
Deregulating marriage suggest two people are housemates, rather than two people sharing their life together. It actually undermines the 'civil rights' issue as you're suggesting marriage isn't worth government recognition financially.
You've raised some interesting points there, some of which I hadn't considered tbh.
On the estate portion I would allow people to designate beneficiaries (whether they be partners or otherwise) who would have rights to the estate. However, I would levy an estate tax above a certain threshold (eg. $1 million).
On your second point I do not believe that special rebates are necessary for couples. After all, due to economies of scale two people sharing a house is going to be more affordable per person than one person having to pay for a house as an example. This is already taken into account with benefits, for example single people get a higher disability pension per person than couples.
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/disability-support-pension
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. 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)
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.
