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

[billfish678]

@Oakminster

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

Yeppers. And at the 110 percent level from the get go.

And the weekend is just around the corner, so brace yourself fellow dopers. Least I’ll be driving through Kansas by then which has got to be a much better way to spend my time…

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

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.

Bigamy refers to the crime of attempting to enter into a marriage while aready married. It’s a kind of fraud. The bigamist is never actually married to two different people, though.

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.

Yes there is. Sorry. The word means what it means. There is no such thjing as a polygamist in the US, just like there is no such thing as a person who is married to a cat.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Oakminster

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.

No, they’re convicted of attemptimg to be polygamists. They can’t actually do that, though, since they can’t be plural married unless the government says they;re plural married.

[billfish678]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No, they’re convicted of attemptimg to be polygamists. They can’t actually do that, though, since they can’t be plural married unless the government says they;re plural married.

How can they attempt to do something thats impossible (by your definition)? And be legally charged for it?

I mean if it doesnt exist, whats the harm in trying?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It’s illegal to try. It’s basically a fraud. Attempting to double dip on benefits.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Bigamy refers to the crime of attempting to enter into a marriage while aready married. It’s a kind of fraud. The bigamist is never actually married to two different people, though.

Yes there is. Sorry. The word means what it means. There is no such thjing as a polygamist in the US, just like there is no such thing as a person who is married to a cat.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No, they’re convicted of attemptimg to be polygamists. They can’t actually do that, though, since they can’t be plural married unless the government says they;re plural married.

Here is how the Illinois Penal Code defines bigamy at 720 ILCS 5/11‑45

Sec. 11‑45. Bigamy and Marrying a bigamist.
(a) Bigamy. A person commits bigamy when that person has a husband or wife and subsequently knowingly marries another.
(a‑5) Marrying a bigamist. An unmarried person commits marrying a bigamist when that person knowingly marries another under circumstances known to him or her which would render the other person guilty of bigamy under the laws of this State.
(b) It shall be an affirmative defense to bigamy and marrying a bigamist that:
(1) The prior marriage was dissolved or declared invalid; or
(2) The accused reasonably believed the prior spouse to be dead; or
(3) The prior spouse had been continually absent for a period of 5 years during which time the accused did not know the prior spouse to be alive; or
(4) The accused reasonably believed that he or she or the person he or she marries was legally eligible to be married.

(c) Sentence.
Bigamy is a Class 4 felony. Marrying a bigamist is a Class A misdemeanor.

Of course, you have a perfectly good rationale as to why the above doesn’t show that you’re full of shit…

Maybe the Illinois General Assembly will hire you on as an expert and you can tell them what bigamy law really is!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

You’ll have to show that the government recognizes both marriages as legal,. If you can’t do that, you’ve got shit.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

'Course, he also said

There are no subclasses of non-poylgamists being discriminated against.

which cuts the legs out from under the whole semantic argument over what a polygamist is at any rate, since “non-polygamists what want to be polygamists” is all it takes to end that argument.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

'Course, he also said

which cuts the legs out from under the whole semantic argument over what a polygamist is at any rate, since “non-polygamists what want to be polygamists” is all it takes to end that argument.

How so? How are such people discriminated against any more than non-polygamists who don’t want to be polygamists?

Is anyone who disagrees with a law being discriminated against by that law?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No, they’re convicted of attemptimg to be polygamists. They can’t actually do that, though, since they can’t be plural married unless the government says they;re plural married.

What is the point of this distinction?

Same-sex couples are, by definition, not married legally (yeah I know some few states now allow it but not at the federal level so for the sake of argument lets pretend it is still illegal everywhere in the US to not confuse the issue).

The OP is talking about an EP analysis. If all it took to deny an EP case was that the group in question currently does not exist because we made such groups illegal therefore they should piss off where does that leave us? Same sex couples want to get married? Well, there is no group of same-sex-married couples so therefore there is no case because there is no such group. :rolleyes:

I do not think wannabe-polygamists have a good case to get polygamy legalized while wannabe-same-sex couples do but nevertheless both can be considered “groups” who can try to make an EP case. Up to the courts to decide if they agree or not.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Not all discrimination is unconstitutional. The law discriminates, in some way or another, against everybody who wants to do something it won’t let him do. So if the question is whether every person who doesn’t like a law that prevents him from doing something is a class who can claim discrimination, the answer is yes. Speeders, murderers, marijuana growers, terrorists. All kinds of people get discriminated against.

It takes an additional step to make it actually unconstitutional, but on that point - how’s a gay man discriminated against if he can marry a woman just like any other guy? How’s Heman Sweatt discriminated against if he can take law school classes just like a white person - just not at the University of Texas? Equal Protection is about equality of substance, not formal symmetry.

Again, not that that second question matters in terms of what you’re actually claiming. There’s clearly a class of people defined by laws against polygamy, and you’re claiming there is not.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Those people may be a class, but they’re not polygamists.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

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?

Ahhh.

OK, I see where I was confused. It was weird because so far as I could see, you were saying the right thing and the wrong thing in alternate posts. My error.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Then they are a subclass of non-polygamist.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@ Whack-a-Mole and Frylock:

I hope this experience will teach you to be a little less credulous in the face of Dio’s legal pronouncements. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” and all that. (Wh-a-M, you’re already getting a reputation for gullibility in this regard, so you may want to be particularly careful.)

[Bricker]

Good. It now looks like Diogenes has made clear that he’s arguing that bigamy is an inchoate crime.

Beautiful.

[tomndebb]

@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)

Underscoring in Italics of the word “or,” mine.
If any of the conditions obvious or immutable or distinguishing exist, then the group may be identified as a class. Children are a class although the overwhelming majority will eventually change into adults, (although many do fail the transition to becoming grown-ups, of course).

[Farmer_Jane]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

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.

Actually, it is my understanding that those who practice polygamy, do so. Marriage in an of itself does not require legal recognition. Civil marriage may.

This is why you can be divorced civilly but not in, say the eyes of the Catholic Church or Jewish law.

For all intents and purposes, a polygamous marriage arrangement that operates as such is one.

No one is making the case that bigamy is legal.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

@ Whack-a-Mole and Frylock:

I hope this experience will teach you to be a little less credulous in the face of Dio’s legal pronouncements. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” and all that. (Wh-a-M, you’re already getting a reputation for gullibility in this regard, so you may want to be particularly careful.)

I am?

Cite? Even from this thread?

[Farmer_Jane]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

Not all discrimination is unconstitutional. The law discriminates, in some way or another, against everybody who wants to do something it won’t let him do. So if the question is whether every person who doesn’t like a law that prevents him from doing something is a class who can claim discrimination, the answer is yes. Speeders, murderers, marijuana growers, terrorists. All kinds of people get discriminated against.

It takes an additional step to make it actually unconstitutional, but on that point - how’s a gay man discriminated against if he can marry a woman just like any other guy? How’s Heman Sweatt discriminated against if he can take law school classes just like a white person - just not at the University of Texas? Equal Protection is about equality of substance, not formal symmetry.

Again, not that that second question matters in terms of what you’re actually claiming. There’s clearly a class of people defined by laws against polygamy, and you’re claiming there is not.

I think what you’re talking about is a question of negative v. positive rights.

People who speed are not being discriminated against. That’s like saying all laws are discriminatory in the sense that they infringe on liberties. Theoretically, laws that restrict liberties are discriminatory, but laws that prevent people from exercising their ‘liberty’ in such a manner that it infringes upon another’s liberty are not.

:dubious: It’s almost midnight. I think I’m talking about two things at once.

walks off muttering to herself