So says Expert Diogenes:
I contend that when analyzing polygamy under the Equal Protection Clause, polygamists are a class.
Debate.
So who won the thread about Buddhism?
Ontopic: I’d say, as not a lawyer, that polygamy is as much of a class as paintball players are. Are paintball players a class?
If you like we can probably get some sort of committee together and just issue a proclamation that you are often correct about legal issues that some people who aren’t lawyers are not correct about.
Save you the trouble of these declarations of victory, especially in cases like this one, where you skip the part where you even discuss the topic.
Ah, I didn’t see that this conversation started in a different thread from the other new one in GD, one in which you did actually discuss it. So that part was unwarranted; you probably hadn’t seen the new one.
I didn’t do as well as I thought I would, but the reason was the prevailing sentiment that Buddhism cannot be cited by reference to any text, but was much more a matter of practice, which was not amenable to cites (or at least, only to cites of the my-post-is-my-cite variety).
Of course. If a law burdens paintball players disproportionately, then we would analyze the class of paintball players for equal protection issues.
Pretty much everybody’s a “class” under the equal protection clause. Just some classes are protected, and some classes aren’t. Polygamists? Class. Paintball players? Class. Mrs. Miller’s 4th grade class? Class.
The better term would be “polyamorous” (or polys, for short), since polygamist implies they are already married.
And of course they can be considered a class. They currently aren’t a suspect (protected) class, but it’s hard to make a case that gays should be while polys should not. I can’t think of a characteristic that gays have that polys don’t have a corresponding one of a similar nature.
No, I hadn’t seen it.
The other thread discusses whether there is a rational basis supporting laws that burden polygamists. I think there is, but there’s room for discussion on the issue.
This thread is to debunk the claim that polygamists are simply not a class. This is… er… an easier question.
Correct.
What makes polygamists a distinctive class (in my head) is that polygamy - or any kind of group/multi partner marriage - is one that revolves around arrangements that are as old as humanity itself. Clearly, relationships are a natural thing.
Marriage may not be a natural right, but civil marriage becomes a civil right when the government decides to legislate such affairs.
Polygamists are not a protected class. Arguably, same-sex couples aren’t a protected class in and of itself, but only become so when the law determines that they are being discriminated against in an unconstitutional manner, and then it only applies to certain things. My heterosexual relationship isn’t a protected class…and I’m not married and not seeking a marriage license.
Also, John, I’ve always wondered why we’ve moved past our Puritan ways and stopped making cheating on one’s spouse illegal. Perhaps because it’s so prevalent that it must be, well, what makes us human?
What makes polygamists a distinctive class is that they’re a distinctive group that can be defined to exclude people not of that group. You can say “polygamist” and define a segment of the population. “Oxygen breather” wouldn’t be a class (until the Methane Men of Rigel 4 land and ask for residence.)
It’s been pointed out that there are infinite number of classes. When I say ‘distinctive’, I meant, a group of people practicing a natural and age-old way of marriage.
Kind of like how gays have probably existed for several thousand years. So have plural marriages.
From Diogenes’ post, it seems the question at issue isn’t so much whether they’re a class, but rather, whether the set “Polygamists in the US” is empty or not.
If “polygamist” means “someone who is married to more than one person at the same time,” and if “married” means “Someone who has a legal marriage certificate indicating their marriage to a living person,” then Dio is right by definition.
Are Dio’s definitions the same as your definitions when you use those terms? If so, then you should agree with him. If not, then you two are probably miscommunicating.
I got the term wrong. It’s polyamory, and then I guess we should call the people “polyamorists”, (or just “polys” like I noted).
Anyway, that gets us out of the **Diogenes-**wins-the-debate-be-defining-his-way-to-victory situation that often arises.
Bigamy is illegal, though polygamy is a bit of a philosophy, no? You can have an un-sanctioned polygamous marriage. Also, people who immigrate to the U.S. may have polygamist marriages.
Again, it’s like saying that ‘same sex couples’ don’t exist because they aren’t given legal status, and those ‘civil union’ ceremonies are ‘ridiculous’.
Dio’s aversion to polygamy seems to be of his sense of what is morally correct.
Thanks, John. I haven’t been careful with that one, either. I like how Wiki’s article - I checked it to see if there were any such movements in the U.S. that had traction - had a photo of people with a POLYAMORY sign. They were at the 2004 Pride in SF. 
You’re suggesting that people are born polyamorist?
In any case, denying anyone rights requires that there be a good reason. There is simply no reason to deny gays the right to marriage. None has ever been stated on this message board at least. They all boil down to, “gays are gross” or “some time in the future, something will happen”.
I can come up with a simple reason to outlaw polygamy now: We’ll run out of girls. Rich men will have 20+ wives and limit the number of women available for other men.
If you contend that rich women will have stables of 20 men to counterbalance, you’re out of your mind. 
That said, I personally don’t have a problem with polygamy, but unlike SSM there are clear disadvantages.
The reasons for denying SSM have been:
- The children. EgADS NOEZ!
- It’s a lifestyle that can be ‘spread’ to others.
- Disease.
You’d really want to restrict people from making their own decisions? I mean, outlawing pre-marital sex would benefit everyone, but we don’t do that. So does banning sugar and forcing people to exercise and 10,000 other things that indicate a ‘nanny state’.
Two-person marriages are intended to curb multiple partners. Geez, with the advance of DNA testing and the fact that women can grow up and be CEOs, why the F not?!
None of those reasons are factual.
No. But nothing is stopping ten people from living together in a sexual commune now. As I said, polygamy has actual downsides.
As I said, I’m not necessarily against it. But it will lead to the capturing of young women into harems for the very rich. That’s simply factual. I don’t see that as something that benefits society.