The biggest thing I see holding legalized polygamy back - at least for a while - will be things like tax codes and inheritance laws. I can see endless legal battles and constitutional questions raised over which wife’s (or husband’s) children get survivor benefits, over figuring income for tax rates (can one wife file jointly, while the other separate?) and so on.
I do see it as a very real possibility though, in terms of a push for it being socially acceptable. If I were a polygamist (and I am not), I would argue that if we can accept the idea of two men or two women being married, why not a man and two women?
Of course, gay activist types pooh-pooh such notions, arguing they are separate legal issues. There may be some truth in that, but it is also true that judicial decisions have consequences beyond the courtroom. One you begin to redefine something that has been unchanging and as clearly defined as marriage, it loses that air of immutability and permanence. The door is opened to any group seeking to expand the definition to include their agenda.
Here’s how I see it. It’s already decriminalized, whether it is trumpeted or not. Nobody cares, for instance, if I was living in a home with however many women and had relations with them, and had children with them, etc.. If there is any cohabitation law, then it is not enforced. If there’s any goal with marriage, it is to legitimize criminalization of religion. Polygamy has nowhere near the potential as homosexual civil rights to do that. The only approach sensible in that direction would be to legalize it, criminalize it, and arrest the religions who reinstate it, but most people with any sense wouldn’t buy it. And that’s besides the fact that most people with half a brain recognize it for a house of cards in today’s world of no fault divorce and court battles over how inheritance splits up.