Skip to comments.Outrage as French judge annuls Muslim marriage over bride's virginity lie
Posted on 06/01/2008 9:08:54 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The annulment of a young Muslim couples marriage because the bride was not a virgin has caused anger in France, prompting President Sarkozys party to call for a change in the law.
The decision by a court in Lille was condemned by the Government, media, feminists and civil rights organisations after it was reported in a legal journal on Thursday. Patrick Devedjian, leader of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement, said it was unacceptable that the law could be used for religious reasons to repudiate a bride. It must be modified to put an end to this extremely disturbing situation, he said.
The case, which had previously gone unreported, involved an engineer in his 30s, named as Mr X, who married Ms Y, a student nurse in her 20s, in 2006. The wedding night party was still under way at the familys home in Roubaix when the groom came down from the bedroom complaining that his bride was not a virgin. He could not display the blood-stained sheet that is traditionally exhibited as proof of the brides purity.
Mr X went to court the following morning and was granted a annulment on the grounds that his bride had deceived him on one of the essential elements of the marriage. In disgrace with both families, she acknowledged that she had led her groom to believe that she was a virgin when she had already had sexual intercourse. She did not oppose the annulment.
Critics ran out of superlatives to condemn what they depicted as a dangerous aberration. Valérie Létard, Minister for Womens Rights, said that she was shocked to see that today in France the civil law can be used to diminish the status of women.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Hey, annulment is a step in the right direction for non-virgins. They usually just do an honor killing.
Most non virgins know what to do to give the allusion she is a virgin.
To be strictly fair, marriages entered into as a result of deception by one party generally allow the other party an anullment, regardless of the subject of the dishonesty.
While I’m not a huge fan of the Muslim obsession with virginity, I fail to see why this “escape clause” should be disallowed simply because the lie involves a sexual matter.
I don’t have a problem with this. She lied about something very important to the guy and to his perception of marriage.
A divorce, at least, should be granted.
So the hubby wanted to show off a blood stained sheet to his buddies after his wedding night... and feminists bitch about locker room baudiness of western males.
Sorry, but a culture that shows off a bloody sheet as tradition isn’t one I’d rate as worth much other than condemnation.
The Judge should have given the Groom a goat as a substitute.
She only lied about sex, and as we all now know, everybody lies about that, so it is no big thing.
Still, knowing Moslem guys I'd say they tend to have no concern whatsoever with the state of virtinity of the whores they pay for services.
The judge gave the girl an opportunity to save her own life. If her family and his were this barbaric to require virginity of her but not him she’s probably safer away from them all. Hope she takes this opportunity to find out about other religions and options for civilized beings of any gender.
Maybe he just doesn’t want to get a disease.
“Union for a Popular Movement”
What a great name.......Covers just about all bases.
The Muslims vs. the Humanists.
I agree that the legitimate reason of deception can count to annul the marriage.
There’s nothing wrong with virginity being desired in a marriage partner. It took that to offend the humanistic French establishment.
Islam has been pushing secular Europe around for quite a bit and they finally get upset.
But when you cut away all the crap, fanatic Muslims and liberal secularists are all Humanistic and legalistic.
They are the modern day Pharisees and Sadducees.
Jesus would tell people to avoid their ideas and we should all do the same.
The last thing she should want is to remain married to this guy. I’m sure she wants to keep breathing.
I’m with you on this. She deceived her fiance on a very basic matter before going into the marriage. I expect this would be grounds for a divorce or annulment in western law as well, although the process would take a lot longer.
You can criticize Muslims for a lot of their ideas about marriage, and their treatment of wives, but I don’t think that excuses lying to your partner in a solemn marriage vow, which amounts to violating a solemn oath.
The French, of course, tend to think that in marriage anything goes. So maybe she should have repudiated her Muslim religion and married a Frenchman.
This used to be extremely common in all European cultures. In eastern and southern Europe I believe as late as the early half of the last century.
Not making excuses for the bloody sheet crowd, just pointing out that western civ got away from it pretty recently.
Who said that?
The judge did her a favor.
Government shouldn’t be involved in recognizing marriages at all. As long as they are, though, annulling a marriage on the grounds of ANY sort of fraud doesn’t strike me as a problem. If this bride represented to her would-be husband that she was a virgin, and he married her in the belief that she had told the truth, under basic contract law, the contract is null and void. Same concept would apply if a man represented to a prospective bride that he was very wealthy, and she discovered after the wedding that all the fancy cars and homes he’d used to convince her of this were actually on loan from friends, and he was actually up to ears in debt, marriage contract should be null and void, just like any business contract in which one party had used to fraud to induce the other party to enter into the contract.
“He could not display the blood-stained sheet that is traditionally exhibited as proof of the brides purity.
That is flat-out gross! What country would want people like that living in its boundries?
“What country would want people like that living in its boundries?”
US, Canada, all of Europe, Australia... Fill in the blanks.
Does the man have to be a virgin?
Does he have to prove it?
Yup. Somehow we’ve gone from thinking that sexual misdeeds should be treated more strictly than others, to thinking they should be treated the same, to the notion that deceit and perjury don’t matter if they involve sex in any way.
Well,...they don’t wait for an invite.
I haven’t heard it for a while, but there used to be a phrase right here in the West: “double standard.”
That was mostly resolved in the secular culture by dropping the rules for both parties.
I wonder if the groom was a virgin?
I wonder if the groom was a virgin?
Sorry, I thought that was the implication of your response. She was impartial to getting a disease because she didn’t inquire into his state of virginity.