Undecided but open to either side.
I couldn't care less either way.
It would be too complicated if you mean "legal benefits for multiple spouses" (having more than one partner at a time is already legal, obviously).
Sure, marry whoever following these rules.
Jack marries Betty.
Say Jack wants to marry Constance.
(Polygamy means literally "more than one wife". More than one husband is "polyandry".)
The marriage can't occur unless Betty consents.
Jack's already entered into a contract with Betty, and his marriage to another will affect the terms of the original contract and therefore she must agree to any alterations to that contract.
Also there's a huge practical issue of both property dispensation in divorce, and upon death of one of the spouses, and the matter of child custody and child support. Which are merely legal matters the morons we have in the legislature nimbly avoid by refusing to make polygamy/polyandry legal.
There is nothing immoral about multiple marriages, provided the parties are all consenting adults.
Because polygamy is currently illegal, only the flakes and wierdos do it.
I'm advocating that the government take a neutral stance with regard to polygamy.
As long as the male/female ratio continues to stay so close to 1:1- and there's no reason for it to stop now- polygamy should not be legalized.