That's a polyamorous (group) marriage, not a polygamist one (at least as per my definition of those somewhat amorphous terms) That said all of the legal agreem

That's a polyamorous (group) marriage, not a polygamist one (at least as per my definition of those somewhat amorphous terms) That said all of the legal agreements become far more complicated and likely null and void if one person drops out or is added. I think an argument could be made, but with the complication you're basically saying polymarriages would be like corporations, with their associated complexity. Polygamy as practiced now is a "bring more childbearing women" into the flock type thing, which is by nature non-equitable. I doubt most folks in a polygamous marriage (by choice) would want to get involved in a polyamorous marriage and as such, I think you can't legally support a non-equal union of that sort.