joseph
“that you most certainly do not have the actual text of the ban.”
It was rhetorical. I can’t provide the ban but even if I did you wouldnt consider that ” authoritative ” enough, thus I will not bother citing sources that give this as the reason (such as Avrhama Grossman’s work) since they too wont be authoritative.
Of course the Avnei Nezer E”H says the reason is to prevent avoidign the cherem on forcing a woman to take a get (if you can marry 2 women then that cherem is irrelevent) and one of the reason’s for that Cherem is to “level the playing field” between Men and Women since Gittin is strictly in the Man’s domain, to give the woman some power too. ( clearly stemming form Wester nsensibilities. ) For this reason Rav JB Soloveitchik wouldnt sign a heter meha Rabbanoim
(Yes Yes I know neither the Avnei Nezer or R’ Soloveitchik are authoritative)
“It is a takana for Ashkenazim not to do it; it is not halacha. You cannot dismiss the differences between a halacha and a takana.”
I dont know what that means.
It is Assur for Ashkenazim to eat rice on PEsach. Yes it is muttar for sefardim, yes it isnt as strict as Chametz, Yes it is Minhag and not deoraysa.
None of this changes the bottom line that Although halacha once allowed All to eat rice on PEsach that no longer is true. (though not due to western sesnibilites thus it isnt related to the OP)
Similarly while it once was allowed to have more than one wife it no longer is.
Again, Yes not for sefardim, yes it is a cherem and not deorysa. so waht? the bottom line is halacha once allowed it and no longer does.
The fact that the cherem can be overturned is immaterial. IF we had a sanhedrin that was greater than previous doros there are lots of takanos they could theoreticly overturn. That in no way makes them less binding until they get overturned.