It's not just a legal contract between the participants, it confers certain legal privileges (you could say the government is also a party in the contract).
A lot of people would be unhappy with InfoSys's CEO marrying all of its H1B applicants, or a pro-immigration activist marrying hundreds of refugees.
This is not to say that polygamous marriage couldn't work, or that nobody abuses monogamous marriages for tax or immigration purposes. But if only a tiny proportion of people want to see their real loving polygamous family relationships approved by the state, the downsides could outweigh the positives.
> It's not just a legal contract between the participants, it confers certain legal privileges (you could say the government is also a party in the contract).
This is the part that needs to change imho. Marriage should have zero legal meaning outside of some sort of contract all parties sign at the time of marriage. You are essentially cofounding a business and that’s what it should stay at.
The government doesn’t make special amends (afaik) if two random people say “We are business partners” so why do it if two random people say “We are married”. Who cares, you do you.
This isn't a completely ridiculous or inconsistent viewpoint, but it's not a popular one. Most people favour at least some of the benefits of marriage (whether it's in immigration, tax, inheritance, healthcare, parental rights...) so the government really should keep them around.
A lot of people would be unhappy with InfoSys's CEO marrying all of its H1B applicants, or a pro-immigration activist marrying hundreds of refugees.
This is not to say that polygamous marriage couldn't work, or that nobody abuses monogamous marriages for tax or immigration purposes. But if only a tiny proportion of people want to see their real loving polygamous family relationships approved by the state, the downsides could outweigh the positives.