Polygamists are not a "class" for the purposes of Fourteenth Amendment EP analysis

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

So says Expert Diogenes:

I contend that when analyzing polygamy under the Equal Protection Clause, polygamists are a class.

Debate.

How are you defining “polygamists?” What is the difference between an unmarried polygamist and an unmarried non-polygamist?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

How are you defining “polygamists?” What is the difference between an unmarried polygamist and an unmarried non-polygamist?

Somone who wishes to enter into a plural marriage but is orevented from doing so by the law.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@CitizenPained

Bigamy is illegal, though polygamy is a bit of a philosophy, no?

No. Polygamy is a cultural practice which does not exist in the US. There are no polygamists in the US, therefore they can’t be a class. If polygamy ever becomes legal, then those who practice it will become a class, but right now, they are only a hypothetical future class.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Your cite says, “To be considered a suspect classification …”

You then go on to say that paintball players are not a class because their charateristics are not immutable.

Don’t you mean, “They are not a PROTECTED class?”

Where did you get the idea that every class must have immutable charateristics?

Huh?

My understanding is we have:

• Rational Basis (pretty much most groups…whatever defines them as a “group” such as paintball players).

• Intermediate Scrutiny (gender)

• Strict Scrutiny (race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty)

Perhaps we are having an issue with definitions (again). I said “suspect” and you said “protected”. I was using them interchangeably. If that is in error my apologies.

I am talking about what gets you into the the Intermediate or Strict Scrutiny category for an EP analysis. Gender is an immutable characteristic. Skin color is an immutable characteristic. Religion and poverty seem standouts but I thought the list was the test the courts use. I’ll go look it up.

I cannot see how paintaballers get there as they fail on the test that being a paintballer is an immutable characteristic over which they have no control (such as skin color is an immutable characteristic). If you think they are I am not sure what to tell you.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

No.

But good for you for giving the Expert a lifeline.

He didn’t give me a lifeline. That was my exact argument. Read it again.

What word would you propose to describe a person who wishes to enter into a marriage with two other people at the same time but cannot because the law forbids it?

Shit out of luck?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Where did you get the idea that every class must have immutable charateristics?

(bolding mine)

The District Court erred in judging the constitutionality of the statutory distinction under “heightened scrutiny.” The disadvantaged class is that comprised by parents, children, and siblings. Close relatives are not a “suspect” or “quasisuspect” class. As a historical matter, they have not been subjected to discrimination;** they do not exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group**; and they are not a minority or politically powerless.

SOURCE: LYNG v. CASTILLO, 477 U.S. 635 (1986)

[randomface]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No. Polygamy is a cultural practice which does not exist in the US. There are no polygamists in the US, therefore they can’t be a class. If polygamy ever becomes legal, then those who practice it will become a class, but right now, they are only a hypothetical future class.

There are most definitely polygamists in the US.

Polygamist Goes to Jail

That was easy to disprove.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Because you suggested that “polygamist” had a narrow definition.

If a polygamist is someone who wishes to enter into a plural marriage but cannot because the law forbids it, then we analyze his equal protection claim as affecting the class of polygamists. As this class is not protected, we would use the rational basis test.

I see you’re trying to change the definition of polygamy to try to save your DOA OP now.

Polygamists are those who are already practicing plural marriage. If they’re not already doing that, they’re not polygamist. If you want to call people who want polygamy to be legal a “class,” knock yourself out, but that has nothing to do with any argument made me, and it’s certainly no case for discrimination.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

Somone who wishes to enter into a plural marriage but is orevented from doing so by the law.

This is not a correct definition.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

How can you say that in the face of this exchange?

I think Severian got it.

I missed the mark.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Huh?

My understanding is we have:

• Rational Basis (pretty much most groups…whatever defines them as a “group” such as paintball players).

• Intermediate Scrutiny (gender)

• Strict Scrutiny (race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty)

Perhaps we are having an issue with definitions (again). I said “suspect” and you said “protected”. I was using them interchangeably. If that is in error my apologies.

I am talking about what gets you into the the Intermediate or Strict Scrutiny category for an EP analysis. Gender is an immutable characteristic. Skin color is an immutable characteristic. Religion and poverty seem standouts but I thought the list was the test the courts use. I’ll go look it up.

I cannot see how paintaballers get there as they fail on the test that being a paintballer is an immutable characteristic over which they have no control (such as skin color is an immutable characteristic). If you think they are I am not sure what to tell you.

Everything in this post is right.

Here is the line that was wrong:

@Whack-a-Mole

As such polygamous people and paint ball players, to name two, are not a “class” under an EP analysis (their characteristics are not immutable).

They are not a SUSPECT class.

They are a class.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@randomface

There are most definitely polygamists in the US.

Religion & Politics: Polygamist Goes to Jail

That was easy to disprove.

What do you think you disproved? This man was not a polygamist. There is no polygamy in the US.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Don’t you mean, “They are not a PROTECTED class?”

See post #28.

If I used “suspect” when I should have said “protected” and there is a difference I apologize.

You could have just pointed out the difference though if I was confusing the terms.

[billfish678]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What do you think you disproved? This man was not a polygamist. There is no polygamy in the US.

Hmmm…

Is there also no child molestation in the USA because its illegal?

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

This is not a correct definition.

OK. How about the class of persons convicted of the crime of polygamy?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Whack-a-Mole

Here is the line that was wrong:

As such polygamous people and paint ball players, to name two, are not a “class” under an EP analysis (their characteristics are not immutable).

They are not a SUSPECT class.

They are a class.

Seriously?

Are there two people posting as Bricker? It has not been that long (90 minutes) since I explicitly corrected that and you even quoted it. No you are taking me to task over it? How does that work?

@Whack-a-Mole

Missed edit:

I am guessing “class” in the OP, when talking about an EP analysis, really means “suspect class”. Polygamists are not a suspect class.

@Bricker

True. Polygamists are not a suspect class.

That’s exactly what I said to Diogenes:

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Bad analogy. Child molestation is a physical act. Marriage is a legal status. If the government says you’re not married, you’re not married. I can go around saying I’m married to my van, but that doesn’t make it so.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

OK. How about the class of persons convicted of the crime of polygamy?

They would still not be polygamists. They would just be a class of criminal convicted of a specific crime. They can’t actually be polygamists unless and until the government recognizes plural marriage. Government recognition is a sine-qua-non to be a polygamist.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What do you think you disproved? This man was not a polygamist. There is no polygamy in the US.

Diogenes, would you care to explain how anyone ever is successfully prosecuted for bigamy? Bigamous marriages are void ab initio, so nobody really is legally married to two people at the same time. And yet, successful prosecutions of bigamy are no legal miracle—they’re fairly ordinary.

This, Whack-a-Mole and Frylock and all you others, is Dio’s solitary point: there can be no such thing as a polygamist in the United States because you cannot legally have a polygamous marriage in the United States. So, if when you read about the plural marriages of the FLDS in Texas, you said to yourself, “Gracious! What a solecism! Those subsequent ‘marriages’ are no such thing! Those subsequent ‘marriages’ were void from the get-go!” then you agree with Dio’s point.

Of course, none of you (not even Dio himself!) did this.

But congratulations to you, Dio, for fooling some lesser minds that you might have a pot to piss in with this canard. If only they understood that your great trick was merely insisting there’s a legally meaningful difference between “polygamist” and “intending polygamist.” There is not, just as the law makes no distinction between “bigamist” and “intending bigamist.”

[Oakminster]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

They would still not be polygamists. They would just be a class of criminal convicted of a specific crime. They can’t actually be polygamists unless and until the government recognizes plural marriage. Government recognition is a sine-qua-non to be a polygamist.

You remember those things you said you were gonna try to not do so much? You’re doing it here.

Someone convicted of murder is a murderer.

Someone convicted of polygamy is a polygamist.