"I would allow polygamy, but only allow marital benefits for one spouse. While this is an uncomfortable compromise, it is a necessary evil."

Scott, are you advocating the government getting involved or even mandating marital benefits? That doesn't sound like the boy with the libertarian bent that I know. While I think if people want to live together in a polygamous (or same-sex) relationship they should be allowed to, government should not be involved in anyway in marriage, civil unions, etc. What I am getting at is that the government shouldn't be denying rights to certain groups that could lead to diminished rights for all down the road, they sure as hell shouldn't be pushing legislation for them either. The only "benefits" being discussed should be in the workplace between the employer and employee.

That being said, if you are going to allow polygamy through legislation, you can't limit rights to one spouse. It's not only hypocritical but perpetuates problems due to the fact that it is a half-assed compromise. This is part of the problem with the abortion compromise.

As far as "There are practical reasons polygamists will not be allowed civil unions. Chief among these is the fact that one spouse will be disproportionately draining governmental benefits" - since when has this been a disqualifying factor? Christ, I can see the Dem presidential nominees running for the microphones to announce this as a plank in their platforms and evidence of how much they "care".