If she doesn't then that is your fault for having multiple greedy wives, who obviously don't love each other. "Legal marriage" is only about property and money. If you actually "love" someone then it shouldn't matter one bit what the govt.'s opinion is on the matter.
So I ask again, what specifically do the muslims want that they can't already do? SPELL IT OUT FOR ME. If you did, then you might either diffuse the "hatred" you ar talking about if it is something completely innocent, or you will be admitting that the people claiming these laws are demeaning to women are correct. Which is it?
Well, here are some examples:
Some people might want the right to have a marriage conducted by their own religious custom be considered legally valid. As Iain points out, a Christian ceremony or a Jewish ceremony currently substitutes for civil ceremonies in granting a marriage. So why not for Muslims?
And, once two people are married, they can't just agree to divy up the property any way they want, in either the UK or the US. There are property, tax, and family laws that force you to run your marriage in a particular way. Part of the idea behind these arbitration systems is that you get to agree to apply your own religion's laws, if you wish, instead of being forced to settle any marriage dispute in a secular court. Again, it is allowed for other religions, and I see no reason why Muslims should be prohibited from doing this as well.
There's no way, even in theory, that a private arbitration system is going "reach women on the street" and restrict their activity. The closest thing is BridgeWalker's amorphous "but we'll grant validity to their culture and that will be bad" argument, and that's as applicable to Judaism and Christianity with respect to women as it is to Islam.