As far as changing the state, i.e. the secular government, I don't need to nor intend to. As far as I am concerned, marriage is not any of their business. I believe that the purpose of marriage license (license means permission) was to allow sex. Before it was fornication, now it is marriage. In today's society where fornication is allowed and encouraged, where recognition of homosexual "marriage" is contemplated, where adultery is not punished and bestiality is merely snickered at, I really don't care much if the STATE recognizes my marriage or not.

We have a slight problem here in Israel, in that for very good reasons which we don't want to change, marriage and divorce are under the jurisdiction of the religious bodies. There is no civil marriage apart from religious marriage, and therefore a rabbinically performed marriage is the kind of marriage which the state regulates. In the U.S., I could have a religious ceremony without a marriage license, and while officially that is a misdemeanor, in practice it wouldn't stand up to a constitutional challenge, and in fact my wife and I had a religious ceremony an entire year before we took out a civil license.

In Israel, there is a civil ban on polygamy if the individual case of polygamy is not sanctioned by the official chief rabbis. Almost the only cases that they will sanction are cases where the wife does not have the legal capacity to accept a divorce (i.e. she is crazy) and in such a case the person isn't allowed to live with both wives. They will not sanctionany case in which the person actually lives with both wives. The punishment is eight years imprisonment. (The way around it would be to perform the wedding in Turkey or Jordan.) A friend of mine tried to convince his wife, and she went to the son of one of the former chief rabbis, who advised her to seek divorce.

I am trying to further the goal through discussions in scholarly circles and raising people's consciousness, but as I am sure you are aware, it s an uphill struggle.

The chief rabbinate of Israel made a generalized ban on polygamy in 1950, applying to Jews from all communities. I believe that the ban was prompted by nonreligious sentiments, i.e. they didn't want Israel to seem not modern enough and not western enough. Up until that time there was no ban from Jews of spanish or oriental countries.

We do not recognize the authority of the official chief rabbinate (we consider them lackeys of a secular state), so their ban only concerns me as a practical issue. As part of the wedding ceremony preparations, they make the groom, if he is of s'fardic (Spanish or oriental background) take an oath that he will not take another wife without permission of their rabbinical courts which in practice won't be given). They require the oath because they too don't believe that their ban is binding. However, the oath is binding unless released by those same rabbinical courts.

But putting them aside, my conclusions are as follows:

The Ban against polygamy was made by rabeinu Gershom approximately 1000 years ago. Someone who violated the ban was subject to excommunication which means that he would not be counted in a quorum for religious purposes, he would not be able to lead services or be called to the Torah in synogogue, no one is allowed to come within six feet of him, or to greet him. He himself is not allowed to bathe or cut his hair or beard. According to some, it was permissible for the rabbinical courts to whip him until he remedied the situation.

The ban as an excommunication ran out in the year 5,000, i.e. 758 years ago. It did not spread to all countries. It did not reach Provence or Languedoc, nor Spain, Greece nor Italy, nor Africa and Asia, and specifically not Israel. In the places where it did reach, i.e.Germany, contiguous France, Poland and European Russia, Austrohungary and lithuania, the ban continued with the force of custom rather than excommunication.

If a person left an area where they had the ban and came to live in a place where they didn't have the ban, the Rabbis of today almost universally consider that it still applies to him. I believe on the basis of strong evidence and precedent that this is incorrect.

If the wife consents, again common practice is that it is still forbidden. I think that this may also be incorrect.

If there is a fertility problem, i.e. they have been married for ten years without children, or even if he has children but she can't have any more, I have found letters from rabbeinu Gershom himself that the ban never included such a situation and he can unconditionally take additional wives. This last informationis readily available in rabbinical sources, but has been complete suppressed from public information, and in practice, someone in this situation at most is allowed to divorce his first wife and take another.

So my conclusion is that anyone living in Israel (and probably America also) who has not taken an oath or made an agrement with his wife not to, may take additional wives. Further if their are fertility problems as outlined, he may do so even in France or Germany and probably even if he had agreed in advance with his wife that he wouldn't. And even the most conservative authorities should accept this, though they probably won't. If his wife consents, then it is possibly allowed even in France or Germany (where the ban was originally made) and even the most conservative authorities should allow it in Israel or America (though they probably won't).

I am totally convinced of the above, and if I can overcome the social issues with our friends and colleagues, and if I find the appropriate second wife, I will proceed. I have prepared 65 pages of material which I am preparing to submit to one of the major Rabbinical figures in America.