[ThinkDifferent]

Therefore, I believe the argument becomes economic. Do employers now have to pay benefits for all spouses, no matter how many?

Employers would just charge more for each "partner" to be covered, like they do today with children.

[idget]

"Employers would just charge more for each "partner" to be covered, like they do today with children."

But, the employer would still be subsidizing the insurance. Even when employers charge the employees for spouses or additional dependents, they generally don't charge the full price of the insurance. And, even if they do, the insurance companies are now covering more people at the discounted group rate, which means they will have to raise the rates on all. At what point do you cut the "additional spouses" off? And, aren't there sure to be court cases based on discrimination if you stop at the 3rd spouse, or 4th or 5th? Not to mention all the kids. I'm just trying to look long-term here, economically. I keep hearing that the polygamy argument is far-fetched, but, twenty years ago, so was gay marriage.