Mousethief

You are a reflective guy, what you say is interesting. Now consider: As a religious or civil institution, marriage is not only a relationship between individuals. It is a relationship which imposes on themlegal obligations to each other, and gives them legal rights and privileges vis a vis third parties. All of which the church or the state enforces. And the people who say, the state has no business regulating who marries, are irresponsible, because as the state enforces the rights and privileges that go with marriage, is it is reasonable that it regulate them.

That is the ratio decidenti of Shelly v. Kramer in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that racially restrictive covenants in deeds constitute state action because the state enforces them, so that those restrictive covenants are unconstitutional.

In other words, since the state confers goodies on married people, it is not unreasonable that the state may, within limits, decide who gets the goodies.

This guy married lots of women so as to maximize the goodies he gets from the state, and he will pay for it. In this country, bigamists who don't hurt anyone don't get tried and convicted. Nothing I can see wrong with that.