\u201cI think the free rider argument is quite weak. Individual people have an intellectual duty to hold consistent beliefs, but politics is the result of bargaining between interest and ideological groups. So marriage confers an incoherent mishmash of financial benefits (and penalties). I think one could plausibly argue that all of these benefits are designed to help make life easier for cash-strapped parents. Even the ones that don\u2019t have anything to do with children per se. But let\u2019s say they don\u2019t. My position is still coherent. Marriage should provide tax credits for children. Dual-income no kids couples do not need tax credits. I also think that single people (and perhaps gays \u2013 I still do not have a fully formed position on gay adoption) who adopt should also be entitled to these benefits.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Pinging Leah Part 2<\/a>: Justin sets out a set of hypotheticals for me to evaluate.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/4256452356987023523-156761113479665804?l=www.unequally-yoked.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"