joint parenting: Biggest benefit is for the children (not the marriage partners) in psychological terms, with the caveat that the marriage itself is sound and a positive environment.
joint adoption: Incorrect. Single people can and do adopt.
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents): Again, not limited to married people.
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent: This presupposes that a single person's immediate family would make a less sound judgment in medical decisions. Also, presumes a spouse would make more sound judgements. In either case a person, single or married, still has next-of-kin options regardless, so it's not a benefit or a deficit.
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health: The ability to attain insurance isn't limited by marital status, so not an exclusive benefit. If there is a cost savings associated with being married and applying jointly, in most cases this is offset for the insurance carrier by the convenience of having one policy cover two people in terms of coverage and the protocol that accompanies it. In the best case scenario the benefit is 10-15% savings over a person filing single, and it should be noted that most people carrying health insurance comes as a benefit from their employer (rather than a private carrier) and they pay a single flat fee for their entire family. Also there is no appreciable savings in health insurance where one (or both) partner smokes.
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support: Child support is only dictated by paternity, marital status has no bearing and support is based on custody and a partner's ability to pay. Community property is only benefical to the partner who has more to gain from the divorce which statistically is the female. I should also add that no fault divorce states have a higher instance of divorce for this very reason.
immigration and residency for partners from other countries: This is a relative benefit depending on the country of origin that the foreign partner resides in. This also assumes marriage in the United States. Not all countries have such immigration laws.
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will: Not so. There are countless legal battles fought over inheritance between children, siblings, and first and successive wives where a will is absent. Although easier, marriage is not a gurantee and this assumes an inheritance sizable enough to be significant. It should also be noted that community debt transfers to the surviving spouse (not the children) in the event of death.
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment: I'm not entirely sure what this is in reference to, but renewing a lease on a rented living space after a spouse dies and the community earning potential is halved is a dubious benefit at best. It's also irrelevant in terms of a single vs. married benefit since the only one dying in the single instance would be the one leasing the living space.
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate): See the 'inheritance in absence of will' above - the same complications apply.
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare: I'm unaware of any person, single or married, who wouldn't be entitled to any of these benefits regardless of their marital status. In fact Social Security and Medicare is based on individual contributions. Stock annuities and pension plans (which precious few employers still offer today) rarely take marital status into consideration as they are generally based on the performance of the employee and/or the financial success of the company. The fact that a spouse may be entitled to these in the event of death may be seen as a benefit, however these become a liability for the partner earning them in case of divorce. Case in point; my boss divorced from his wife of 30 years last year and the ownership for the tradmark of our company's product was contested in the divorce settlement. In the end her implied share was settled for $1.5 million for a trademark that has only existed for 8 years. While this is a fantastic benefit for her, it was likewise a fantastic liability for him for no other reason than that her name was on the marriage contract.
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home: This is only a benefit in states that recognize it and usually only for an existing property at the time of death - meaning, if the survivor buys a new property (or moves to another state not recognizing this) they start over from scratch. Additionally, the benefit is not a result of marriage, but the result of being married to a dead spouse - meaning you don't enjoy it while being married. Besides the $1-$4K property tax savings you'll get won't even buy you the casket & funeral costs.
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans:This presumes marriage to a serving or having served member of the United States military. VA home loans are transferrable (I know, I've assumed one before), so this is hardly a benefit exclusive to married couples. The spouse of a married service person cannot use the serving member's G.I. bill benefits for education. VA medical care is often substandard to private or employee health care (hell, even Medicare in most cases), so in the case of VA care or none at all this could be a benefit for the person married (as well as the children) to the military person. In light of this, however, it does not exclude a single military person from the same benefits.
joint filing of tax returns:This is entirely dependent upon the earning of both parties in the marriage. Rarely will you find wealthy couples filling jointly as this incurrs the infamous 'marriage penalty' in higher tax brackets. Any IRS professional will tell you this, and in fact this is exactly why federal tax laws were rewritten to make the "married, but filing seperately" option available. Now, couple this with the fact that statistically, the more wealthy a man is, the more likely he will have a non-working stay-at-home spouse thus negating this benefit. This also assumes couples married in the U.S.
joint filing of customs claims when traveling: So the next time you're considering marriage, remember, you can bring twice as much foreign fruits and vegetables back into the U.S. when your honeymoon is over.
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children: This is a legal issue, not one specific to marriage. If an unmarried person killed as part of a wrongful death incidence had a legally dependent family member (such as a parent or grandparent), that member would also be entitled to a wrongful death benefit.
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child: This is employer specific, not automatic and not marriage specific when it is available. Bereavment also extends to single persons caring for ailing family members and single parent children.
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her: Posthumous benefit - you're still a widow(er) at the end of it.
crime victims' recovery benefits: Again, not marriage specific. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldsmith's family's are still collecting large sums of money from O.J. Simpson's estate today after their successful civil suit against him.
loss of consortium tort benefits: Archaic and hardly worth a mention in a list of benefits, but hey, when you're grasping for straws,..speak Latin!
Consortium Tort
domestic violence protection orders: Also apply to common law relationships (i.e. living together) and are not marriage specific.
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity All these do is make a spouse non-liable for the illegal behaviors (held as accomplice) and criminal evidence in criminal cases where he/she could not be realistically implicated in the knowledge of that crime. Meaning that just because a person is married to a criminal doesn't implicitly make them an accomplice to the criminal actions of their spouse. In other words it must be seperately proven in court that he/she is an accomplice.
OK, you got me here. Who'd have thought judicial protections would be such a great reason to get married. So what are you waiting for? Rush out and get married today.
AZANON, the next time you go looking for tangible benefits of marriage may I suggest you pull instances from site that aren't comparing the benefits of heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage? All of these quotes are common, popular reasonings why heterosexual marriage should remain apart from homosexual unions, not evidences of a Man's benefit from marriage. The intent of your original list is a petition to illustrate what homosexual unions lack that heterosexual ones do not, and a plea for same treatment.