The bride said she was a virgin. When her new husband discovered that was a lie, he went to court to annul the marriage””and a French judge agreed.
The ruling ending the Muslim couple’s union has stunned France and raised concerns the country’s much-cherished secular values are losing ground to religious traditions from its fast-growing immigrant communities.
The decision also exposed the silent shame borne by some Muslim women who transgress long-held religious dictates demanding proof of virginity on the wedding night.
In its ruling, the court concluded the woman had misrepresented herself as a virgin and that, in this particular marriage, virginity was a prerequisite.
But in treating the case as a breach of contract, the ruling was decried by critics who said it undermined decades of progress in women’s rights. Marriage, they said, was reduced to the status of a commercial transaction in which women could be discarded by husbands claiming to have discovered hidden defects in them.
Even the Catholic Church will annul marriages in which there was not full and honest disclosure of relevant fact. Since virginity was considered highly important, the dishonesty about it invalidates the marriage.
What worries me is that her family may kill her, not that the marriage is off.
Katherine is right. It’s an honesty issue. Each partner has the right to know whether the other has been sexually active before, because it can have a significant negative impact on the marriage, whether through STD infection, emotional/psychological baggage, or simply being able to compare lovers’ performances. I always tell couples I’m preparing for marriage that keeping secrets is grounds for annulment.
However, maybe cases like this will start to raise Western awareness of the Pandora’s box we’re opening by patronizing Muslims.
[i]”In a democratic and secular country, we cannot consider virginity as an essential quality of marriage,” said an expert on French secularism, Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux.[/i]
I wonder if she would say the same about fidelity within marriage. Would it have made any difference if the husband had been an atheist or the wife had been the one seeking the annulment, I wonder?
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
we Americans who practice divorce on demand (even on a whim) have nothing credible to say on this issue.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
#3 Or would it have been different if somehow it could be proved that the HUSBAND was not a virgin!
#5 Agreed. That was what I meant to imply, though I could have said it more explicitly. What’s sauce for the goose . . .
Oddly I concur with the court’s decision. This is an issue where one party made false representations on a matter of fundamental importance to the other party entering into a contract. If I were an atheist I would have ruled in the husband’s favor. This is basic contract law. And since France does not recognize any aspect other than secular law, this should be treated accordingly.
ICXC NIKA
John
(Happy Ascension Thursday!)
As for the legal issue of non-disclosure, the court probably ruled as it should have.
As for the ethical issue, I can only imagine what a crummy thing this must be for the woman, and it strikes me as very unjust.
C.S. Lewis once remarked that teachers should not demand of children that they not lie, since sometimes that is the only defense left to the otherwise defenseless. This doesn’t excuse the lie, but it recognizes the powerlessness of many members of our society. I wonder if I would have done any differently had I been that woman. Given her cultural assumptions, I wonder if she felt she had any other options. (Of course she _had_ other options, but did her religion and culture prepare to take them on as living options? I doubt it.)
This makes me so grateful for the stories of the women Jesus met and forgave; and of Joseph, who intended to deal with Mary in a way that guarded her dignity – and who then came to see even more clearly.
Christ, have mercy on this woman; deal gently with her and with her husband; and lead them to faith in you so that both may receive your grace and become the bride of Christ.
Careful, any speech that might be construed as “hateful” to muslims might get you a $23,000 fine as it did Ms [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7434193.stm ]Bridgitte Bardot[/url].
Robroy,
Really makes you shake your head and thank God for the 1st Amendment, no?
Cheers,
Laocoon
“Really makes you shake your head and thank God for the 1st Amendment” —Laocoon
Sure does. And let’s never forget it!
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
From “A Man for All Seasons”:
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!