1. The right to be seen as ‘equal under the law,’ facilitating equal treatment of singles in the workplace, in the social security system, in the tax code, and elsewhere, where violations of these rights are penalized through watch-dogs and other sanctions.
Examples of sub-rights under this global right include:
A. The right to equal taxation under law, including gift allowances and the sharing of proceeds from retirement accounts, regardless of marital status.
THE PROBLEM: The U.S. tax code has not been updated to reflect modern society; it’s still based in the 1950s culture, when more people were married (and married earlier), and thus it favors marriage-centered nuclear families who own homes. U.S. tax law, unlike tax law in most other nations, allows married people to file jointly. A married wealthy couple may save millions filing this way. Their single peers, however, have no such option.[i] The U.S. tax code has historically been shaped as part of (misguided) efforts to encourage more people to marry, in the way that tax breaks are provided to people who have children or own homes. Of arguably greater concern, the tax system creates inequity by privileging high income taxpayers, which disproportionally impacts single people and other marginalized demographics, who are generally economically disenfranchised for additional reasons, and therefore tend to have lower incomes.
When attorney, tax expert, and university professor Dr. Lily Kahng studied marital status discrimination for an article for The Law Review, she realized that “There is never a single person’s bonus – that is, a single person never pays less relative to a couple, whether married or unmarried, with the same amount of income as the single person (p. 660).”[ii] Instead of focusing on this inequity, though, the national tax conversation centers the couple as a taxpaying unit. The famed “marriage penalty” is not an illustration of tax law favoring single people over married people. This so-called penalty refers to a limited circumstance where if some couples get married, they would pay more taxes. More often, though, they actually pay less. Moreover, a single person always pays more than a couple with the same income.[iii]
Black singles or singles from other disenfranchised demographics are disproportionately impacted by these tax inequities. Black married couples usually pay more taxes than white married couples. By extension, Black singles pay even more taxes in relation to white married people—the people whom the U.S. tax code has been historically shaped to benefit.[iv]
As of 2023, spouses can transfer monetary gifts between themselves without paying estate or gift taxes. Outside of the spousal relationship, gift transfers are limited to $17,000 in 2025.[v] There are exclusions for education and medical expense gifts, and there is a lifetime gift/estate tax exclusion of $13.99 million in 2025, and while singles can benefit from these exemptions, these laws do not allow singles to catch up to married couples, who also benefit from these exemptions.
B. The right to legal recognition of a designated important person or people in our lives, without complicated bureaucratic work-arounds.
THE PROBLEM: Marriage inherently provides married people with the right to “select” an important person to benefit from their retirement funds and other government-subsidized benefits. Married people can even sometimes inherently “select” more than one important person, given that the marriage trope includes spouse-adjacent relationships, such as in-laws. For example, corporations usually provide bereavement leave only for nuclear-based relationships, which means a worker could take time off to grieve their spouse’s grandparents, but not their own cousin. For private benefits, such as life insurance, single people do have the option to designate a beneficiary, but there are two problems with this: First, the beneficiary usually faces a different (worse) set of tax requirement than if they were the designator’s spouse. Second, although there are ways to designate beneficiaries via trusts and other financial mechanisms, these are complex and often require payment to lawyers, fiduciaries, and other expensive professionals—expenses married couples don’t usually incur, because their benefits (and templates for navigating those benefits) are clearly written into society’s common legal and financial paradigms.
C. The right to designate the recipient of Social Security benefits upon death.
THE PROBLEM: Back when Social Security was created, it needed to reflect the fact that few women worked outside the home and therefore were reliant on their husbands’ income and benefits. Hence the myriad Social Security policies that center and benefit married people. Nowadays, working single people of all genders contribute as much into Social Security as working married people (especially white men, who have disproportionally high incomes), but singles cannot leave their Social Security benefits to anyone after they die. This means that single workers are subsidizing married workers’ spousal dependents. Not only are singles subsidizing their peers’ spouses, but they are subsidizing spouses who have multiple options for leveraging social security—options that the singles do not have. Here are two examples:
- A married person can claim Social Security as both a worker and a spouse; this is particularly beneficial of the spouse is the higher-earning partner.[vi] A single person, however, never has the corresponding option to claim Social Security from a loved one (outside of dependent relationships). If a single person doesn’t work, they don’t get Social Security, but a married person who has never worked can receive their spouse’s benefits. In the past, this was a more sensible policy, reflecting the large numbers of women who worked as homemakers and raising children, because their other options were limited. Today, now that both spouses are likely to be working, this policy is outdated, and harmful for singles.
- Even divorced people can receive spousal SS benefits, if they were previously married to that spouse for ten years. Conversely, a single person may have been close to a worker for ten years, but the single person has no way to claim SS benefits from that relationship.[vii]
D. The right to save money and plan for the future, without financial loss based on marital status.
THE PROBLEM: As noted across this entire Legal section of the SBR, and in other sections as well, almost every financial move a person makes is colored by marital status,[viii] almost always to the detriment of single people. Married people can invest money in an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) for their spouse while that spouse is not working. Although Single people can invest money in an IRA for another person while said person is not working, that person pays a much higher tax rate when withdrawing the money.[ix] Married people who are not working can have money put in an IRA for them by their spouse, and they won’t incur a penalty when they cash out.[x] Married people can withdraw money from an IRA for education or medical purposes without ten percent penalty. Singles must pay a ten percent penalty. A single person who receives an inheritance IRA must withdraw the money within a certain number of years, but a married person who receives an inheritance IRA from their spouse could wait until age 73 to withdraw, benefiting financially from those years of growth that were not available to their single peer.
Many annuities are equally discriminatory. Annuity holders have an option to purchase a “qualified joint and 100 percent survivor” plan that pays the holder and their spouse a fixed monthly payment for the rest of their joint lives, and then after a spouse’s death the surviving spouse receives the same fixed monthly payment for the rest of their life. A single person, however, only has the option for a “single life annuity,” with no payments provided to any loved one after the author’s death. For example, one of the (single) authors of this SBR will receive US$499.52 per month starting at retirement, whereas her married peer has the option to accept a marginally smaller monthly payment, $425.91, and after her death her spouse would receive that same amount in perpetuity, until their own death.[xi]
E. The right to equal workplace benefits, such as equal overtime, equal time off, equal bereavement leave, and other benefits, regardless of marital status.
THE PROBLEM: Employers and colleagues often pressure single people to work different hours or longer hours than their married coworkers, because of the assumption that single people—especially single people not in coupled romantic relationships—have fewer responsibilities or joys outside of the workplace. For this same reason, single workers are often given more difficult tasks or assigned inconvenient travel jobs.[xii] Although this discrimination is technically illegal, employers are not held to account for this behavior. In both the government and private sectors, married employees may receive subsidies for their spouses (and other nuclear family members) to travel or relocate, a benefit seldom provided to single workers. Other examples of benefits where single employees get the short end of the stick are: 1) bereavement leave; 2) family and medical leave; and 3) cultural habits such as office baby and wedding showers where single employees are encouraged to contribute money—sometimes repeatedly for the same individual—with no expectation that the single person’s own non-nuclear-normative life achievements will ever be celebrated in the workplace.[xiii]
This discrimination doesn’t only happen at the employer level. State and federal governments participate as well. For example, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows employees to take up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave to care for ill or disabled family members—but only family members within strictly-defined nuclear-family parameters, primarily based around a spouse.[xiv] According to the Department of Labor website, FMLA “is designed to help employees balance their work and family responsibilities. . .”[xv] However, the DoL’s limited definition of “family” excludes many or most of single people’s loved ones, thereby further upsetting single people’s work-family balance—ironically so, given that single employees are usually asked to pick up the slack of their married co-workers, whose work-life balance is seen to be more worthy of protection.
The DoL website also states that the FMLA’s goal is to “promote equal employment opportunity for men and women.” Ironically, the FMLA widens the resource and employment gaps between men and women. In addition to their families (and corresponding life choices) not being respected and validated, single people are also paid less money than are married people. Combine that with the fact that singlism historically has disproportionally harmed, and continues to disproportionally harm, single women (especially single women of color or disabled single women) more than men.
2. The right to equal treatment, resources, housing, benefits, supportive services, and survivor benefits in the military and federal government, regardless of marital status.
THE PROBLEM: The military is a bastion of marital status discrimination. Married troops often receive private housing for the couple, while single troops are required to live in barrack-type community housing. Survivor benefits skew heavily in favor of spouses (and the nuclear unit), depriving single people of a significant way to support their surviving loved ones. Supportive services like “family” and deployment counseling aim to accommodate primarily spouses.
In addition to the benefits discrimination that happens in all government and commercial enterprises (insurance inequities, pay inequities, retirement fund inequities, etc.), single federal employees receive far fewer government subsidies than married people do. Married federal employees, especially in foreign service organizations, are commonly subsidized to allow spouses to accompany them on postings when relocating within or outside of one’s home territory. Spouses receive subsidized education in the DOD school system. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office’s 1997 list of marriage laws, a federal civil service employee who is ‘disabled by work-related injuries receives augmented compensation if he or she is married.’[xvi]
Singlism manifests itself many ways in the U.S. State Department. A single State employee transferring to the D.C. area from overseas receives a per diem for temporary housing, while her married counterpart, staying in the same level of housing, receives the same per diem plus a partial per diem for her spouse. In D.C., where the per diem falls short of covering actual temporary housing costs, the single person can accrue thousands of dollars of out-of-pocket expenses for her temporary housing, while the married person’s identical temporary housing expenses would be fully covered.
The State Department policy on medical evacuations for employees serving at posts overseas favors married people as well, due to an underlying assumption that a State Department employee has a spouse available to provide a certain expected level of care. [xvii] The policy works like this: If a seriously ill or injured employee must be relocated to a different country to receive medical care, the Department will pay for an “attendant” to accompany the employee; the policy does not specify the attendant’s relationship to the employee, but does assume the attendant is at the overseas post with the employee. The Department will not pay the employee’s attendant to travel from a different location to meet the employee at the employee’s post and then accompany the employee from there to the site of the medical care. This policy disadvantages single employees who are more likely to not have anyone at post who can serve as an attendant for a medical evacuation. The State Department will, however, pay for an attendant to travel to a medical evacuation site from a different location if the employee is serving in an “unaccompanied post,” an area considered too dangerous for spouses and children to live with the employee. Again, this reflects the underlying assumption that every State Department employee has a spouse, and the only reason that spouse is not on-site is because the posting is too high-threat.[xviii]
3. The right to equal treatment and compensation when disabled, regardless of marital status.
THE PROBLEM: Across government, commerce, academia, and nonprofits, disability rights and benefits are heavily tied to marital status. Some single disabled people will lose benefits if they get married. Some single disabled people cannot afford to live alone on their disability benefits, and they may therefore be forced into unappealing, toxic, or abusive cohabitations or marriages. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office’s 1997 list of marriage laws, a federal civil service employee who is ‘disabled by work-related injuries receives augmented compensation if he or she is married.’[xix]
4. The right to equal pay.
THE PROBLEM: Single people earn less than married people. According to 2023 U.S. Census data, the average income for a single person living alone was $56,000, whereas the average income for a married couple was 76 percent higher, at $146,000 (or $73,000 per spouse).[xx] According to 2021 data, single women earned $8000 less than their married peers, and single men earned $21,400 less than married men.[xxi] There are many reasons for this, including education levels, shared housing expenses, and social prejudice. It is often assumed that married people have more responsibilities, so they are given higher salaries by employers. Also because married people are deemed to be more responsible, they’re promoted more. In yet another example of intersectionality between singlism and sexism, married men earn more than (all) women.[xxii]
5. The right to file a Title IX complaint regarding marital or romantic relationship status discrimination.
THE PROBLEM: Although the U.S. federal code officially prohibits discrimination based on marital status, overriding cultural taboos about being single mean that this law often isn’t implemented in practice, and therefore singles have little to no protection against common discriminatory social practices, such as being “asked” (highly encouraged or voluntold) to work longer hours because they are single (and ostensibly have no obligations outside of work). Although singles could technically file a Title IX claim in these instances, they would likely meet significant pushback, in a similar dynamic to how women claiming sexual harassment were denigrated or discouraged, prior to the #MeToo movement.
6. The right to claim Loss of Consortium.
THE PROBLEM: U.S. law even commodifies the non-monetary intangible, non-monetary benefits of a marriage relationship, through the principle of “loss of consortium.” If one member of a marriage is wrongly killed or severely injured, the other member of the marriage is presumed to incur damages from the emotional harm and from not being able to spend time and experiences with the dead/injured spouse (to the extent that occurred in the relationship prior to the death/injury). Who can claim loss of consortium? It depends on the state. In the vast majority of cases, only spouses can claim loss of consortium. Other family members and friends don’t have this same right, regardless of how close they were to the victim. Neither do unmarried romantic partners. The U.S. government has effectively decreed that these people do not deserve recompense for the emotional benefits of a close relationship, such as companionship, love, emotional and/or physical care, shared hobbies, and/or sex. Married people, however, do deserve to be compensated if they lose these things—at least according to U.S. law.[xxiii]
7. The right to equal access to health, bereavement, and other benefits in the workplace and from commercial industries, and the right to designate use of family leave benefits outside the conventional (nuclear-based) definition of family.
THE PROBLEM: Single workers are often given more difficult tasks, longer hours, or inconvenient travel jobs. They are often expected to cover holidays and have the last choice of vacation times. Although this discrimination is technically illegal, employers are not held accountable for this behavior, because the belief that singles are less-than is so ingrained in society. Single employees commonly get less bereavement leave, higher health insurance premiums, and less family and medical leave. Spouses who are on their partner’s health insurance policy have more career and employment flexibility: They can take jobs that offer no insurance or less fulsome insurance. A single person, who does not have the option of piggybacking on anyone’s insurance, doesn’t have this same flexibility. The public healthcare insurance marketplace, due to its expense and lack of comprehensive plans, does not fill this gap for single people—and especially not for single people with disabilities or chronic health conditions.
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows employees to take up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave to care for ill or disabled family members—but only family members within strictly-defined nuclear-family parameters, primarily based around a spouse. According to the Department of Labor website, FMLA “is designed to help employees balance their work and family responsibilities. . .” However, the DoL’s limited definition of “family” excludes many or most of single people’s loved ones, thereby further upsetting single people’s work-family balance—ironically so, given that single employees are usually asked to pick up the slack of their married co-workers, whose work-life balance is seen to be more worthy of protection.
The DoL website also states that the FMLA’s goal is to “promote equal employment opportunity for men and women.” Ironically, the FMLA widens the resource and employment gaps between men and women. In addition to their families (and corresponding life choices) not being respected and validated, single people are also paid less money than are married people. Combine that with the fact that singlism historically has disproportionately harmed, and continues to disproportionately harm, single women (especially single women of color or disabled single women) more than men.
8. The right to be charged equally for products and services.
THE PROBLEM: Most companies package and price their products as if they’ll be purchased by couples, not single individuals. Some businesses charge a singles supplement. Others even charge a single person more than two people combined.[xxiv]
9. The right to federal housing laws that prohibit discriminatory practices toward singles and non-nuclear family structures.
THE PROBLEM: Landlords have been shown to prefer to rent to couples versus singles, and mortgage lenders may be more hesitant to offer a home loan to single borrowers, given the prevalent stereotypes of singles as less responsible and less grown-up than married people.[xxv] Lenders also can indirectly or directly discriminate against single people by considering income levels (often straight income, not including collateral). A double income is seen as more reliable, and hence a couple is seen as a better bet for a loan (even though couples can easily be, or become, single-income as well.) There are currently municipal zoning ordinances that prevent groups of single people who wish to cohabitate, and these ordinances limiting non-family members from living together have been upheld by the Supreme Court.[xxvi] Many zoning ordinances have “limited occupancy” laws that prohibit single people living together to save expenses. For example, in Fairfax County, Virginia, just outside of Washington, D.C., “no more than four persons not related by blood or marriage” may live in a single dwelling. At the same time, though, literally “any number” of children may live with “two or more” people who are related by blood or marriage.[xxvii] This may decrease the housing options available for single people, especially in places like Fairfax County where housing costs are high.
10. The right to be considered a valid voting bloc.
THE PROBLEM: When politicians and policy makers think about their demographics, they do not consider single people to be a voting bloc worth cultivating and serving. They are not familiar with issues important to single people (equal pay, equal benefits, equal housing affordability and accessibility, and other items discussed in this Bill). Politicians routinely use non-inclusive language such as “working families” or “children and families” instead of “people” and “workers.”
11. The right to limit participation, without opprobrium, in celebratory gifts that privilege marriage- and nuclear-family-centric milestones and do not offer reciprocation for single people.
THE PROBLEM: Singles pay an informal “gift tax” when attending weddings, wedding showers, and other amatonormative celebrations. (This includes baby showers, because while single people can of course have babies, they have fewer babies than married couples, and shower culture and the celebration of reproduction is historically and currently supportive of the couple-unit.) Not only are there no corresponding (culturally ensconced) celebrations to mark milestones in singles’ lives, such as graduations, house purchases, or other achievements, but single people are expected to pay for entire shower gifts themselves, whereas a married couple is allowed to show up with just one present, the cost of which can be split between the spouses. In traditional life-milestone celebrations, such as wedding and baby showers, housewarmings, and graduations, often an entire (nuclear) family will bring one gift, while a single attendee is expected to also bring one gift of equal value.
12. Right to protection from without judgments about one’s financial status based on one’s marital status.
THE PROBLEM: Singles are often stereotyped when it comes to finances. They are seen as irresponsible, because they have not “grown up” and taken the traditional, heteronormative step of getting married. According to this logic, they are not considered worthy or mature enough to manage their finances. They are also stereotyped as freewheeling and lacking responsibilities and expenses. According to this logic, because they don’t have a spouse (and, by hetero- and natalnormative extension, children), single people have no financial obligations, and therefore they have an endless supply of money to spend however they choose.
In truth, not only do single people not have extra money compared to couples, they usually have less. As described elsewhere in this Singles Bill of Rights, single people pay an informal “singles tax” in many areas of life, from travel to groceries to wages and retirement savings. Financial institutions are less likely to lend to single people, due to social stereotypes of singles as immature, and due to policies such as income levels—making it harder for singles to find adequate housing.
[i] Kahng, Lily. “One Is the Loneliest Number: The Single Taxpayer in a Joint Return World.” Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 61, 01 April 2009, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1371902 (Accessed: 20250309)
[ii] Kahng, Lily. “One Is the Loneliest Number: The Single Taxpayer in a Joint Return World.” Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 61, 01 April 2009, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1371902 (Accessed: 20250309)
[iii] DePaulo, Bella. “Marriage Penalty? I don’t think so.” Psychology Today, 06 April 2009, www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/living-single/200904/marriage-penalty-i-dont-think-so (Accessed: 20250309)
[iv] Diaz, Jaclyn. “Report: Black married couples face heavier tax penalties.” NPR, 02 February 2023, www.npr.org/2023/02/25/1159331777/tax-policy-center-black-married-couples-bigger-penalties-irs (Accessed: 20250309)
[v] Cain, Patricia. “Taxation of Unmarried Partners.” Washington University Law Review, Vol 99, 2022, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4146040
[vi] “Benefits for Spouses.” Social Security Online, www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/spouse.html (Accessed: 20250309)
[vii] “Social Security Rules for married, divorced, and widowed people.” J.P. Morgan, 10 January 2025, www.jpmorgan.com/insights/retirement/social-security-rules-for-married-and-divorced-people (Accessed: 20250309)
[viii] Obel, Mike. Fact Checked-Jeff White. “Maximizing the Financial Benefits of Marriage.” Smart Asset. 28 July 2023, smartasset.com/personal-finance/financial-benefits-of-marriage (Accessed: 20250309)
[ix] “Top 5 Financial Benefits of Marriage.” Wedgate, 11 April 2024, https://www.wedgatematrimony.com/financial-benefits-of-marriage (Accessed: 20250309)
[x] “Pair up on savings with spousal IRAs.” Vanguard. investor.vanguard.com/accounts-plans/iras/spousal-ira (Accessed: 20250309)
[xi] Kagan, Julia. “Joint and Survivor Annuity: Key Takeaways.” Investopedia, 2024, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jointandsurvivorannuity.asp (Accessed: 20250309)
Investopedia sources:
“How much does an annuity cost?” Annuity.org. www.annuity.org/annuities/fees-and-commissions/ (Accessed: 20250309)
“Your Benefit, Your Choice – Benefit Options from PBGC.” PBGC.gov, www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/yourbenefityourchoice.pdf (Accessed: 20250309)
[xii] DePaulo, Bella. “Your single coworkers and employees aren’t there to pick up the slack for married people.” Quartz, 25 May 2017, qz.com/991030/your-single-coworkers-and-employees-arent-there-to-pick-up-the-slack-for-married-people (Accessed: 20250309)
[xiii] Todd, Sarah. “Why more people are staying single—and how workplaces can adjust.” Quartz. 09 September 2021, qz.com/work/2086874/why-more-people-are-staying-single-and-how-workplaces-can-adjust (Accessed: 20250309)
[xiv] “FMLA Frequently Asked Questions.” U.S. Department of Labor, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla/faq (Accessed: 20250309)
[xv] “The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Overview.” U.S. Department of Labor, webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/fmla/overview.aspx (Accessed: 20250309)
[xvi] “Categories of Laws Involving Marital Status.” General Accounting Office, Office of the General Counsel, 31 January 1997, buddybuddy.com/gao-1997.pdf (Accessed: 20250309)
[xvii] Foreign Affairs Manual (16 FAM 316.3, Non-Employee Attendants)
[xviii] Foreign Affairs Manual (3 FAM 3746.5, Emergency Visitation Travel)
[xix] “Categories of Laws Involving Marital Status.” General Accounting Office, Office of the General Counsel, 31 January 1997, buddybuddy.com/gao-1997.pdf (Accessed: 20250309)
[xx] “HINC-02. Age of Householder-Households, by Total Money Income, Type of Household, Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder.” US Census, 2023, www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hinc/hinc-02.html (Accessed 20250622)
“Average Single Vs Married Income,” Self, www.self.inc/info/single-vs-married-income/
[xxi] Dellatto, Marisa. “Single Adults Make Less Money Than Partnered Ones, Study Says” Forbes, 05 October 2021, www.forbes.com/sites/marisadellatto/2021/10/05/single-adults-make-less-money-than-partnered-ones-study-says/ (Accessed 20250622)
Fry, Richard and Kim Parker. “Rising Share of U.S. Adults are Living Without a Spouse or Partner” Pew Research, 05 October 2021, www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/10/05/rising-share-of-u-s-adults-are-living-without-a-spouse-or-partner (Accessed 20250622)
[xxii] DePaulo, Bella. “Married Men Paid More Than Single Men, Get More Interviews.” Psychology Today, 04 October 2021, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/202110/married-men-paid-more-than-single-men-get-more-interviews (Accessed: 20250309)
[xxiii] “Loss of Consortium”Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, June 2023, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/loss_of_consortium (Accessed: 20250309)
[xxiv] Solo Penalty: Cruise Line Charges Single Travelers Much More Than Double, Roger Dooley, Forbes, 2024 – www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2024/01/07/solo-penalty-cruise-line-charges-single-travelers-much-more-than-double (Accessed: 20250309)
[xxv] Morris, W. L., Sinclair, S., & DePaulo, B. M. (2007). No Shelter for Singles: The Perceived Legitimacy of Marital Status Discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4), 457-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207081535 (Accessed: 20250309)
[xxvi] Cahn, Naomi. “Singlehood.” University of Virginia School of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Paper Series 2023-2024.
[xxvii] Fairfax County, Virginia, Zoning Board Code Compliance. “Household Living, Overcrowding, and Multiple Dwellings” www.fairfaxcounty.gov/code/multiple-occupancymultiple-dwelling (Accessed: 20250429)
Singles Equality | Singles Bill of Rights 