I believe its upto an individual to decide who and how many to marry unless the people involved in such arrangement are not okay with it. Just not man but woman should be given freedom to have more than one husbands if she and them desire. There are stories on net about happy families which such arrangements and they even foster kids. Personally, i would have a single partner and soul mate and give my all to one.
Actually, in the USA, it IS up to the individuals to decide.
Government has the right to dictate how its own use of marriage can exist in the public. If a person applies to government, government has the right to dictate what is done. Government is basically there to regulate relationships in the public. The marriage license is a public statement, as are the rules about how many wives you can have under government licensing.
Notice that most of the time government doesn't regulate what you do in private, in your own home. Consider, also, that consenting adults have the right to get together in private, and even to some extent in public. So, if you really want to be married to a bunch of people, you can do it in private. But the regulation has to be by agreement, where you are not harming each other, at least by intent.
But when you are married privately, and go into the public, you might be prohibited even from stating that you are all married. Why? Because because most people in the public will understand that you mean marriage according to the way government has prescribed it.
This means that you had better write out your private agreement so that all your wives or husbands understand that your private marriage is a private membership thing. Enter, the Private Membership Association (PMA).
In the last year alone, the numbers of PMAs have increased greatly. I don't know that anybody has applied the PMA to private marriage, yet. But why not? Do Internet searches on it, and in Youtube.
Three major points to consider in PMA marriages, or private marriages without a formal PMA:
1. DON'T DO IT. Polygamy will be trouble for almost all people who do it;
2. What about the children? There are all kinds of legal problems of having children who are private property and yet public in some ways;
3. Be ready for fights with government. You need to know the difference between lawful and legal, and why legal doesn't apply to you in private. The PMA simply tells government that the members of the PMA are private, and tells them in a way that government will understand. But where children are involved in a PMA, government is going to fight.
Why will government fight about PMA children? Look at this:
Arizona Senator David Farnsworth Says Fellow Republican Lawmaker, Kate Brophy McGee...
Republican Sen. David Farnsworth told police that he felt threatened when confronted by fellow GOP Sen. Kate Brophy McGee.
Farnsworth has been meeting every two weeks with a group of critics of the Arizona Department of Child Safety, including a group that has accused the foster-care agency of direct involvement in child trafficking. Some on social media have claimed there's a broad conspiracy involving judges, caseworkers, lawmakers, the governor and prosecutors to cover up sex trafficking.
Farnsworth told the Arizona Capitol Times that Brophy McGee told him to "lose the entourage" of conspiracy theorists and "crazy parents" whose children were taken by state child welfare authorities.
In other words, government wants all the children they can get to use as object for their hidden child trafficking rings. CPS (Child Protective Services) loses loads of kids each year. Members of CPS are trafficking the kids for money. Read the article, and follow up on the links in it.