French marriage dissolved because the bride was not a virgin
With its mix of Islam, the status of women and French law, the case of the non-virgin bride was certain to prompt a torrent of indignation. The outrage has continued all weekend in the media, blogosphere and political world. The affair is also stirring wider interest, judging by more than 120 comments on our newspaper story.
I feel sorry for the family court judge -- an enlightened modern woman by all accounts -- who tried to help a young couple by annulling a marriage that was never consummated and that neither finally wanted. But you have to wonder about her common sense, given the explosive ingredients of the case.
The quick facts: the groom, an engineer in his 30s, discovered on his wedding night in July 2006 that his bride, a student, was not a virgin. She had earlier assured him and his family that she was sexually "pure". The disgraced bride was sent back to her family while the groom and his father sought the annulment. The judge quashed the marriage on the grounds that the husband had been deceived over what the law calls an "essential quality" of the contract. The bride confirmed that she had lied about her virginity and consented, after initial reluctance, to the annulment. It was confirmed on April 1 but not noticed until a legal journal discovered it last week.
With few exceptions, rights activists, feminists, politicians and commentators have condemned a decision that is seen as a reversion to ancient notions of female subjugation
For many it is alarming because it ties into unhappiness over the way that a section of French Muslims observe codes in conflict with the spirit of the strictly secular French republic. Britain has had a similar controversy with a remark earlier this year by the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Church of England, that British courts will have to take into account Sharia law.
President Sarkozy's party wants the law changed and ministers have lined up to condemn the Lille decision. Martin Hirsch, Sarko's "High Commissioner for Active Solidarity" said this morning that he was speechless with anger. "This is inconceivable in our society," he said. Fadela Amara, the Muslim-born minister for urban areas, said it endorsed the "mediaeval" view of women as goods.
Ségolène Royal, a would-be leader of the Socialist party, weighed in today, saying the case inflicted public humiliation on a woman: "This is a step backwards for the emancipation of women and right that they won to dispose freely of their bodies."
The groom's lawyer says that the fuss is unjustified because the case involved fraud not religion or women's rights. The judge applied section 180 of the civil law code which says: "If there is an error involving one of the parties or on the essential qualities of that person, the other spouse may seek the annulment of the marriage."
The lawyer has received little support form legal experts who say that it is an aberration to consider "non-virginity" to be an essential quality under the law. Elisabeth Badinter, a pioneer of women's legal rights in the 1960s and 70s, noted the pressure on many Muslim girls to remain "intact" for the sake of family honour. Some are even murdered in the name of so-called family honour, she said. The bride in the Lille case "did not have the freedom not to lie ... she lied in self-defence."
A few hard right politicians have sided with the annulment -- as have some American Christian commentators on the Times site. The most interesting dissent from the criticism has come from the French Justice Minister herself. Rachida Dati, one of the stars of Sarkozy's cabinet, approved of the decision because, she said, it "protected" the bride
To understand her point you need to know that Dati, the daughter of an Algerian and a Moroccan, was herself pressed into an arranged marriage as a student. She has been reluctant to talk about the episode but she mentioned it in a book last year. "I accepted marriage with a man with whom I shared nothing. An acquaintance in Algeria with an official request for my hand. It wasn't a forced marriage. I was an adult. ... But I accepted without wanting it... to please my family... As soon as I married, I wanted to erase it completely." She sought an annulment which was granted.
[Rachida Dati, Justice Minister]
The judge did not cancel the marriage because the bride was not a virgin, as the title of your post suggests, but because she had lied to her future husband on a fact that she new was essential to his consent. France being a laic State, the Law has no opinion on the the validity of the groom's religious ideas.
Here is an interesting comment I found (in French), of the decision: http://www.maitre-eolas.fr/2008/05/30/969-n-y-a-t-il-que-les-vierges-qui-puissent-se-marier
Posted by: zirglob | 1 Jun 2008 15:30:41
1. From what I have come to understand, the “secular” French republic is not based on Christian values but on ‘universal’ republican values that have evolved and were accepted, as time went by. These values are in large part compatible with Christian values, yet independent of them.
About 10 % of the French population share values that they also consider ‘universal’ and that differ from the other 90 %.
Shouldn’t the universal truth of these 10 % also have a voice within the secular French republic?
Isn’t this the essence of republican values, to integrate what is generally accepted as universally true?
The secular French society holds the keys to what shall be considered universal values – but based on what? What is their objectivity based upon?
2. The bride in this case has admitted to having lied about her virginity.
If not, would anybody have bothered to find out HOW she had lost her virginity? Maybe it had been the groom himself or it was the result of abuse or happened during a careless routine medical examination.
Posted by: Lily | 1 Jun 2008 15:31:14
The arguments handled by this jurist dates probably back from the century of 1800.Virginity in this time
of mariages between couples
of the same sex is outdated
Virginity-requirement in this time can not been a valid reason for annulment of a legal marriage
Posted by: Edward Does | 1 Jun 2008 15:53:06
I posted this ealier as the subject had been brought up on another thread. This interests me a lot, so please excuse my transferring my comment over.
Azloon, Daniel,
Rachida Dati is explaining and seeming to support the marriage annulment on grounds of the woman not being a virgin, she is saying (and I can see her point though I think she needs to look further) that as well as its being in keeping with the letter of the law, it's a way for a young woman to get out of an unwanted arranged marriage. And in this case indeed, it seems as if the bride in question was in agreement with the annulment, quite possibly for that reason. (It's even possible for both sides to have agreed to take that tack to get the marriage annuled - maybe neither of them wanted it - anything's possible.)
For me the main point is the discriminatory aspect - a man is not expected to go to his marriage-bed a virgin, but a woman is??
It's hard to imagine a judge annuling a marriage because the man wasn't a virgin (first you'd have to get the blighter to admit it).
The other evening on Le Grand Journal, the editor of Charlie Hebdo (Philippe Val?) said it was impossible to imagine the judge granting such a thing for someone other than a Muslim, but I think that's a dangerous red herring and a risky road to take.
Virginity in a bride is possibly more important and widespread than is admitted outside of Muslim society.
Look for instance at sex tourism and the exploitation of young girls and even children; look at this monstrous Fourniret. We're shocked at these, naturally, we comfort ourselves with their perversion, but it means nonetheless that there are men who think that it's good to be "first" (even "first" over and over) - to link this with marriage only gives it a respectability it doesn't warrant.
There is outrage and there is discussion, something's got to give - I feel the law concerning this might be adjusted (it is down to self-misrepresentation rather than to the being or not, a virgin).
Hymen reconstructions are not and shouldn't be allowed to be an answer. The hymen can rupture naturally anyway in the course of everyday life. It's absence isn't necessarily proof of previous penetration.
PS I've just gone back up to see what the article can be that has prompted this discussion - that skyscraper is definitely phallic! : )
Posted by: dot king | 1 Jun 2008 11:37:17
Posted by: dot king | 1 Jun 2008 16:19:36
Marriage is as antiquated now as wedding virginity.
Therefore, if you still want to get married, you should also conform to its antiquated protocols. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Once you decide to engage in casual sex...you have chosen casual relationships over a committed marriage. Bon voyage!
Posted by: Byrdeye | 1 Jun 2008 16:39:53
"she had lied to her future husband on a fact that she new was essential to his consent." (zirglob)
... leading to situations like these?:
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/delize/20080529/img/pen-dessin-du-jour-comment-85a7f34dd8640.html
Posted by: Lily | 1 Jun 2008 16:55:11
The judge at the first place didnot respect the law. He heralded that not being a virgin was making the woman lacking of an ""essential quality" .
In french law (and rightly so!), being a virgin does not make you "better quality" than being a slut! Marriage is a civil contract and has nothing to do with sexuality.
The judge obviously ignores the basics of the differences between a civil contract (mariage à la mairie) and a religious one. I would understand the wedding to be cancelled by the priest or the imam, but not by the republic. Spliting is possible : that's called a divorce.
May this man go back to it's middle age habits.
Should we cancel all weddings of all those who found out later that the sister soul was not what they thought it was at the first place?
Would the judge have done it the other way arround? "I thought you did have sex before! You didn't? you lack practice! let's cancel the wedding!"
Unfortunatly, religion is always trying to define social contracts and habits.
Some still believe that religion has to do with freedom...
Posted by: Dominique | 1 Jun 2008 16:55:25
I simply cannot understand all these men explaining that the point was that the girl lied and that it was not about her lack of supposed purity.
Reading the commentary in the French media, it is clear that the only arguments previously admitted on these grounds concern concealing a criminal record or a past career as a prostitute (that one dates to the 1900s), bigamy and so on. Since when is a woman's past sex life grounds for breaking a marriage contract? Since the middle ages, I suppose.
It's funny that the people arguing the legal point of the lie are obviously the same bigots who attach so much importance to what they call purity. The stomach churns seeing the arguments put forward by these men. Only last week France had the verdicts in one of the biggest serial killer cases in European history. Michel Fourniret, the killer, had an obsession with virginity, seeking out "immaculate" girls to rape and kill with the help of his wife. The Islamist males' obsession with virgnity is not far from the same mental track . Can you imagine for a second a judge quashing a marriage because the bride reported that the husband had already been to bed with a woman.? She would be laughed out of court. What are they going to do now that even France is on the verge of recognizing homosexual marriage?
I don't recall who, but one of the big French philosophers had a good line about men who think their honor is located between the thighs of young girls.
Posted by: Joan Arles | 1 Jun 2008 17:20:04
ZIRGLOB thanks for linking that article which was interesting and informative - mostly on the way lawyers interpret the letter of the law without much thought for its wider impact.
Had he taken a less high-handed tone, his message (now why do I think it's a he? hmm) more people might be receptive to his explanation, which on one level is perfectly acceptable - as it applies in THIS case to THIS couple.
But, can't this be used as legal precedence? There's the danger with finding "reason" for the letter of an outdated law.
It does nothing to dispel this image, that I'd thought was more telling of those dusty old British judges and law lords, that the law is not detached in any useful, independent way, but so detached as to be completely out of step with the times we live in.
Posted by: dot king | 1 Jun 2008 17:40:10
"The groom, an engineer in his 30s."
So much for the ability and willingness of "educated" muslims to integrate into French society.
So much for the absurd and naïve notion of "education" being able to morph just about anybody into a "citizen".
Posted by: Robert Marchenoir | 1 Jun 2008 17:44:41
"What are they going to do now that even France is on the verge of recognizing homosexual marriage?"
Joan Arles
But are they on this "verge"? They have just stripped a young homosexual of his French (birth)nationality following his marriage in Holland to a Dutch national on the grounds that France doesn't recognise homosexual marriage.
I mean - ?????
I absolutely agree with you about the discriminatory effect of this decision, the opposite is indeed unimaginable.
However I don't think the Qoran requires a bride's virginity. One of the people who has been very strongly outspoken against virginity being the reason for the dissolution of the marriage is the head of the Muslim religion in France.
Posted by: dot king | 1 Jun 2008 17:48:19
Here we go again: Shariah law is ready to take over. Welcome to Eurabia!
What a lot of nonsense! About 300 marriages are annulled by French judges every year. For a lot of reasons. Including a case where a Catholic women pleaded she had been misled by her groom who did not tell her he was divorced even though he knew it was a tie breaker (sorry for the involuntary pun at the time of Rolland Garros).
This is just a typical case of French hysterical illiberalism. Since virginity is not important for the wide majority (including yours truly) let's make sure it becomes a compulsory attitude and let's badmouth those who think otherwise.
Contrary to what Charles hinted, a lot of lawyers support the judge's decision. And by the way isn't it strange that Monsieur Badinter has not rallied behind his wife's stand? Maybe one of our top legal minds is a bit embarrassed. Son silence est assourdissant.
To Dot King, your argument about male virginity is completely missing the point. The judge did not grant an annullment because the woman was a virgin but because she had lied about it to her husband to be for whom it was an essential quality.
Posted by: Léo | 1 Jun 2008 18:21:36
As has been noted earlier in these posts, the issue was the truthfulness of the bride proior to the marriage, NOT the virginity issue per se.
Any man or woman should be able to have a marriage annulled if they discover that their spouse had lied to them in a matter that was of significant importance.
I am blown away by all the posts here by people who think they have the right to decided for this groom what is and isn't important to him. That's HIS choice!
Talking about having the freedom to engage in pre-marital sex and then turning around and saying he doesn't have the right to disagree is hypocrisy of the highest order.
I guess freedom only extends to what these hypocrites decide they want it to extend to.
What a joke!
Posted by: burkanuck | 1 Jun 2008 18:26:29
It's a shame to read such mistakes on your blog, as it is already difficult enough to have French journalists tell the truth.
The truth is that "essential quality", be it non-virginity or whatever, is NOT DEFINED BY THE LAW but by the would-be spouses.
So what this decision protects, is the right to define for oneself what may be the "essential qualities" one looks for in a spouse. These might be religion-motivated, as in this case, or not.
Opposing this would mean that the law has to list what are the legal, or illegal, spouse choice criteria.
Posted by: Yogi | 1 Jun 2008 18:53:25
@Edward Does, Dot King, Dominique, Byrdeye : This judgment is as liberal as you can dream : it asserts everybody's right to decide for themselves what are the "essential qualities" to look for in their spouse. Of course, you personaly may disagree with the criteria used by some people. And so what ?
Posted by: Yogi | 1 Jun 2008 19:02:16
And Leo is right : all the lawyer's blogs of the French blogosphere supported the decision.
Posted by: Yogi | 1 Jun 2008 19:05:43
I am surprised that many posters failed to note that Charles pointed out that the judge in this case was a woman. In fact, had she wished, the bride could, I imagine, have divorced her husband for non- consummation ( he did not, as Charles writes fail to 'consume' the union). In fact, whatever the politically correct view on this case, I do think that they were both released from a marriage doomed to disaster, and, no, I certainly do not think that virginity on either side is a prerequisite for a successful marriage, very much the reverse!
Posted by: RichardH | 1 Jun 2008 20:37:29
Yogi,
"@Edward Does, Dot King, Dominique, Byrdeye : This judgment is as liberal as you can dream : it asserts everybody's right to decide for themselves what are the "essential qualities" to look for in their spouse. Of course, you personaly may disagree with the criteria used by some people. And so what"
I don't dream of a liberal world. The right to decide essential qualities for themselves? Of course! But why did they marry at the first place? The very definition of the law is that it is the same for everyone. So, one's definition of what is an "essential quality" has no room in a civil contract defined by law. It may be meaningfull at church, or mosquée, but not in the townhall.
Well, let me inform you that we live in the real world : driving 200 km/h is seen by many as an "essential quality" but...it's not according to the law. Some people may think that being a virgin is "essential quality" but...it's not! The man can claim what ever he wants, he can even choose a virgin wife, but, virginity is not, sorry, it's not an "essentiel quality" in the civil code.
If virginity is an "essential quality", that means that not being a virgin is an "essential default", and that can just not be accepted as a definition of the law.
If words start having different meanings according to who uses them, hen it is the very end of the principle of universal law.
Posted by: Dominique | 1 Jun 2008 21:18:38
YOGI, LEO,
If I'm not mistaken, this young man discovered that his new bride was not a virgin and as a direct consequence, because he'd made it clear that he wanted a virgin bride, he applied to have the marriage annuled.
The bride herself did not object to this and it is said that she also wanted the marriage annuled, she "acquiesced".
I don't recall having said anywhere that the law permitted the annulment because the young woman wasn't a virgin, but that the law found a way of getting an annulment for the couple, couched in other terms.
I know, I knew before this article appeared, that the fact that she had lied about her virginity, ie the lie itself, was the reason for the judge's decision, all right and proper according to the letter of the law.
That I have no problem with and have stated so.
But it doesn't alter the fact that it was the young woman's non-virgin state, her previous "fall from grace", that prompted the action in law, whatever the outcome.
If he'd had the gratification of hurting her in penetration, produced a spot or a flood of blood, or whatever he expected on the wedding night, then do we presume he'd have stayed married to her?
This young man wanted only a virgin for a wife. whatever else she might be doesn't seem to have mattered to him. But there again, there are private aspects we can't know.
If her being "experienced" hadn't been the reason for wanting the annulment in the first instance, I doubt there'd be much in the way of comment.
According to what I've seen, heard read over the past couple of days, marriages are annuled in France more often than we'd expect and for a variety of reasons.
But this time, the annulment was sought on the initial grounds that his bride had lied to him about her virginity, not about her criminal record or her shady past as a prostitute, or the fact that she had a large extended family to keep; but about something as banal and private as whether she was a virgin or not.
Wouldn't it be interesting to understand just what foundation there is for this in this young man's psyche? - It isn't written in the Qoran - this couple needn't have been Muslim. That's a red herring.
And given that the husband could think he had a right to expect his bride to be a virgin, surely then, since we are all equal in the eyes of the law and justice is blind and so forth, the same law could be applied if a young woman were to find her new husband "just a little too experienced and knowledgeable in female anatomy" on the wedding night, get him to admit she wasn't his first and get the marriage annuled on the same grounds using the same article of law.
Except that it doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?
A virgin bridegroom . . .
No matter which law or article was used to get this annulment, it was, in the beginning, and is, in the end, to do with virginity.
Posted by: dot king | 1 Jun 2008 21:30:12
Yogi,
"all the lawyer's blogs of the French blogosphere supported the decision."
Of course! Lawyers will always back decisions that give them power over the citizens. Allowing a judge to define what is an "essential quality" will alway please them and their ego. That is not the question.
Lawyers are the last persons to askabout that. Just like Mercedes and EXON are the last people to ask about global warming
Posted by: Dominique | 1 Jun 2008 21:33:17
I must concur with Yogi.
Joan, don't set up a straw man. I personally agree with this decision. I can assure you I'm not a bigot and I personally don't see what a fold of membrane has to do with purity. The truth is that this decision is not about "brides must be virgins". It's about "a contract is a bona fide agreement between parties".
Posted by: John Styx | 1 Jun 2008 21:34:59
"they were both released from a marriage doomed to disaster, "
Probably, but why a cancelation? Why not a simple divorce like for everyone else?
I am afraid to say that this was because they were muslims. Discrimination at it's best. It would never have been done for catholics
Posted by: Dominique | 1 Jun 2008 21:36:25
"With few exceptions, rights activists, feminists, politicians and commentators have condemned a decision that is seen as a reversion to ancient notions of female subjugation" (Charles)
Most politicians from all sides alike are jumping on the bandwagon. Excellent opportunity for them to parade under the sun lights and to get media exposition for free.
I am pleased that Mrs.Dati took a courageous position, certainly not popular within her political "friends". Acting from conviction and courage is not very common nowadays ...
Posted by: Daniel Strohl | 1 Jun 2008 21:49:58
@Dominique : Similar decisions have been taken before for catholics. Your preconceptions at their best.
And if I mentioned lawyer's blogs it's because Charles said they didn't support the decision.
Posted by: Yogi | 1 Jun 2008 22:33:01
Dot King,
I don't think that letting people decide for themselves what is important in their future spouse (or husband) is outdated in any way. I belong to the vast majority of French people who believe virginity is not an important matter, but in the name of what could we impose our view to this guy? What would it look like?
Posted by: zirglob | 1 Jun 2008 22:38:25
@Dominique : "Some people may think that being a virgin is "essential quality" but...it's not!" Are you serious ? Who are you to decide for everybody else if that's important in their life or not ? Let them decide for themselves. That's what this judgement says.
And by the way yes, if it could be proven and agreed by the parties involved that being able to drive at 200 km/h (on a legal speeding track) was an "essential quality" sought for, and knowledgedly falsely claimed but ultimately failed during the wedding night (what a scenario !), then yes the wedding would be canceled all the same. You could call that the religion of speed I guess ...
Posted by: Yogi | 1 Jun 2008 22:47:14
"The very definition of the law is that it is the same for everyone. So, one's definition of what is an "essential quality" has no room in a civil contract defined by law. It may be meaningfull at church, or mosquée, but not in the townhall." (Dominique)
Interesting point, Dominique. I'm just wondering what you would say if the situation was that the woman was sterile, and knew it, but played along with her husband-to-be's dreams of having children.
Would "ability to have children" be an essential quality? I think "sterility" would be a less controversial quality than "virginity", but as you point out, it may not be an "essential quality" in the civil code. (Though actually, I think it is.)
And there would be a difference if the woman didn't find out she was sterile until AFTER they were married.
In the first case, the husband might want the marriage annuled for two possible reasons: because she was sterile, or because she had covered up her sterility. In the second case, it would be just one reason: because she was sterile.
But I think the dishonesty aspect of it is easier to see in the sterility case. Most people would not ridicule someone who dreamed of having children in the same way they are ridiculing this guy who wanted to marry a virgin. To lie about being sterile would be considered serious by most of us, I think. Or is it only the sterility issue that matters?
If they didn't find out she was sterile until after they had been married for awhile, there's a greater posibility that he would not divorce her. But to find out she had deliberately lied to him about being sterile could be grounds for divorce in itself practically.
In the case of virginity, it COULD be that he was more concerned with the falsehood than the fact that she was not a virgin. It's possible.
I like the idea that maybe neither one of them wanted to marry, but did it for their families, and used the virginity issue to get out of it. There are all kinds of possible situations that we don't know about.
In any case, since they were apparently in agreement about splitting, there was no reason for the judge to refuse them, unless she thought they didn't qualify for annulment and thought they should go for a divorce instead. But I think that is a separate issue, isn't it?
Posted by: Maggie | 1 Jun 2008 23:23:21
"I am pleased that Mrs.Dati took a courageous position, certainly not popular within her political "friends". Acting from conviction and courage is not very common nowadays ..." (Daniel)
Agree with you, Daniel.
Posted by: Maggie | 1 Jun 2008 23:25:47
To understand Dati's point, you need to know her personal history? Her personal history may shed light on her motivations, but I think that we can understand the arguments of an adult woman, who is also a lawyer and the justice minister of a large nation, without reference to her sentimental life.
Posted by: tf | 2 Jun 2008 00:26:04
The marriage was "not consumed"? You mean "not consummated", surely?
[Yes of course. Thanks. I didn't check my scribbling properly. I've corrected it. Blogs don't get the usual editing treatment. CB]
Posted by: James Heartfield | 2 Jun 2008 07:18:28
@Dominique: cancellation is a normal procedure. Search for "annulation mariage" on a webgroup such as aufeminin.com and you'll see results.
Posted by: John Styx | 2 Jun 2008 08:12:56
Is Dati courageaous for speaking as a Justice minister seemingly referring only to her personal experience? Or is she confusing feelings and responsability?
Posted by: Pierre | 2 Jun 2008 08:39:12
Sounds like a wise judicial decision by a wise woman judge. It is just that the language of the decision is unfortunately emotive. Both parties in this fleeting marriage got what they wanted. Next.
[It wasn't quite that, Richard. The bride was forced into accepting the anullment according to the women's rights minister last night. CB]
Posted by: richard jones | 2 Jun 2008 09:43:25
Maggie, what happened to marrying for love? To accepting the other as s/he is? Virgin or not, sterile or not, ex-con or not, orphaned or not, poor or not?
What happened to understanding and forgiveness and working things out?
(Violins! No don't worry I haven't turned into an incurable romantic :), I'm just trying to enter into the spirit of why people marry in the first place and assuming that some notion of love or consideration enters into the equation, maybe respect too - if we're lucky.)
Eg:"I didn't dare tell you because I was afraid you'd leave me."
"Oh, you silly goose, of course, I wouldn't leave you, I married you because I love you and want to spend the rest of my days with you and even wake up next to you when I'm sixty-four."
Isn't that the way it's supposed to go with love and marriage?
I can see the logic in your arguments, and agree with you to an extent, but Oh! How clinical it all becomes when virginity and/or sterility are considered, and indeed, required "essential qualities" in a partner.
Men can be sterile too, but mostly wouldn't be aware of it until they began trying to start a family - and it probably wouldn't occur to them to find out before marriage; so would we be favourable of an annulment on the grounds of negligence?
I too suggested that each member of this couple might have wanted to extract him/herself from an unwanted marriage (in which case all to the good, but one comes out of it with pride the other with humiliation, which seems unjust to me), so the whole question of arranged marriages has to be addressed more courageously.
But if one can use virginity as an "essential quality", and we see above that there are some male bloggers who think it's perfectly reasonable to want a virgin bride, if not for themselves (of course:)) but with understanding for others' wanting it, then I think there is a danger that brides in arranged marriages are going to get younger and younger in order to have a better chance of being "pure". And if necessary, the marriages will take place in another country to get around the marriageable age laws.
As with many judgements that follow the letter of the law and apply it, there remain too many unanswered questions and unaddressed issues.
Posted by: dot king | 2 Jun 2008 10:32:53
I agree with Richard Jones, both parties got what they wanted, and it was the best solution.
No the bride was not forced into accepting the anullment, she agreed on the procedure and confirmed the motives of that guy were known to her. In French :"elle a acquiescé".
[As I mentioned, according to the accounts now coming from the lawyers, she did not initially agree. She was talked into accepting it against her wishes. CB]
Posted by: Romain | 2 Jun 2008 10:47:00
My late wife was a gynecologist here in la France profonde for many years. Often enough, she was asked to issue a "certicate of virginity" to young muslim brides to be, a request (requirement?) generally made by the father of the bride.
In one instance that I remember well (at the time, it was a source of great anxiety in our household where rigorous honesty was an important concept), the father had mentioned that if his daughter turned out not to be a virgin, she would be beaten and expelled from the household. Obviously the mariage would be off.
By pudeur, I'll let readers guess at the young bride's state of chastity, but as a satellite to the current discussion, I think this illustrates some of the difficulties when cultural values clash in real life situations, and there is only poor ole Authority to come to the rescue.
Posted by: textibule | 2 Jun 2008 11:00:39
"Since virginity is not important for the wide majority (including yours truly) let's make sure it becomes a compulsory attitude and let's badmouth those who think otherwise."
Thank you Leo, (and also Burkanuk and Maggie), people are so losing their mind on this -private- issue ! It's unbelievable !
Posted by: Sandrine | 2 Jun 2008 11:46:19
Dot King, French judges are bound to follow positive law. It's what we call "juger en droit". There are specifically (except in very few cases) forbidden to judge according to equity ("juger en équité"). I believe this is not the case in Common law. If following the law leads to a decision which may seem absurd/ridiculous/etc., the law needs to be changed.
More to the point here, you cannot assume that other people have the same point of view about marriage or about love than you do. People also marry for money, social status, to start a family, and so on. Would you accept the fact that your spouse is actually a transsexual? A former convict? Impotent? A member of, say, the Klan? That he/she has a lover that he/she doesn't want to leave? That she/he had previous children you knew nothing about? That she/he has no intention whatsoever of living with you? Some people do, some people don't.
Posted by: John Styx | 2 Jun 2008 12:06:18
CB,
It would be necessary to publish these lawyers accounts. Sacha Guitry used to say :"lawyers were given a robe to enable them to lie as efficiently as women" (don't hit me Dot) lol
Posted by: Romain | 2 Jun 2008 12:18:51
Digressing slightly. From the days when men were men, I briefly shared a flat in London as a student with a just-married young couple, he a solid English trainee accountant she a cute Mexican girl 'of good family'. They met in Mexico by the pool at a chic holiday resort, where she was staying with her parents: by the end of the fortnight, he was in a position where he felt he had to make a proposal or wave goodbye forever (besides anything else, flying to Mexico in those days wasn't cheap).
So the next time they met was for the (Catholic) wedding. The first time they shared a bed was that night. And the bride's mother was right there to verify at first hand that the man was indeed a man. After surviving that ordeal, even accountancy exams seemed a breeze..
Posted by: Roger Goodacre | 2 Jun 2008 12:54:44
If he specifically asked her before they were married whether she was a virgin and she yes, but wasn't, then the judge's decision is right. His decision to go ahead with the marriage was based on her answer. Any contract based on a fraud or lie is prima facie null and void (regardless of religion).
Posted by: Daisy | 2 Jun 2008 13:11:38
John Styx,
I fully accept (and have said so) that the judge operated within the letter of the law by finding an article that would fit the application for annulment. No problem. I don't blame the judge or the lawyers whose job it is to do exactly that.
But why, as Dominique asked, annulment and not divorce?
And as for what I would and would not tolerate in a spouse - I haven't got one, jettisoned ages ago - and I'm ultra-mega intolerant!! : )
(BTW my little "scène de ménage" was humorously meant, if not downright sardonic - romantique vs amour intéressé)
Arranged marriages take place in all sorts of societies and have done since time immemorial, but most of us can choose to marry (or not).
If it doesn't work out, we can then choose to divorce, or just leave, or whatever. I can see that someone might marry for love, for money, to climb the social ladder, to have a pretty accessory (male or female) to show off.
But for virginity? It wears off more quickly than any other charm a person might have. Gone the first night in fact.
Romain: worry not, physical violence isn't in my scheme of things, I'll just have to content myself with pitying you ; )
Poor lamb ....
Posted by: dot king | 2 Jun 2008 14:16:17
"Any contract based on a fraud or lie is prima facie null and void (regardless of religion)."
Daisy, I don't think anyone disputes this, but the phrasing in the law is "qualité essentielle" and the question that people are asking is whether a woman's virginity is an "essential quality".
I wonder if her virgin state was written into the marriage contract?
It isn't necessarily a religious question, as I said further up, the head of the Muslim faith in France spoke out strongly and immediately, affirming that it was not stipulated in the Qoran that a bride has to be a virgin on her wedding night.
This virginity question seems to have been used as a pretext for dissolving a marriage and an article of law successfully sought to fit the application.
Since girls and young women now don't restrict themselves to a spot of embroidery, painting, strolling in the woods with a chaperoning governess, or playing the piano, but often go dancing, play sports, run for the bus even, ride a bike, swim; energetic activities that can rupture a hymen naturally (jeez, even writing such stuff I feel like I've been propelled back thirty-plus years), and sexual activity needn't have been the cause.
Posted by: dot king | 2 Jun 2008 14:30:08
We are all jumping at words like virgin, muslim family, lied. It is widely known that muslim girls are pressured to marry into who ever the family says they should. But not only muslim girls, girls from the sub continent are constantly subjected to this irrespective of their religion. Families in these countries receive more money if the girls are virgins and marry them off to old and horrendeous men in the middle east and else where.
It is this kind of thinking and the pressure on the muslim families from their own country that feeds into those living in the western world.
In this case setting aside the issue of virginity, muslim etc and just look at the legality of the marriage which was entered into by deception. For that the Judge was right in quashing it.
I just hope the poor girl is not beaten up and expelled from her family.
Posted by: k | 2 Jun 2008 15:13:24
Yogi,
"@Dominique : "Some people may think that being a virgin is "essential quality" but...it's not!" Are you serious ? "
Of course i am! It may be a quality for this man, but it is certainly not a "standard quality" that is to be defined by law. This is exactly why the judge should'nt mention it at the first place. Not being a virgin is no "FAULT" according to the law.
Do you really thing virginity is an assential quality? good for you, that's you own view. Nothing to do with the law
The law does not only concern the two people involved but the entire society. There are legal and illegal contracts. Contracts are not defined according to people view only, but also according to the society. This is, by the way, a major difference with anglosaxon countries (refering to the procureur de la republique representing the society)
Leo,
""Since virginity is not important for the wide majority (including yours truly) let's make sure it becomes a compulsory attitude and let's badmouth those who think otherwise."
This does not make sens. This is not the issue. The judge said the very opposite. We could paraphrase it with :
"Since virginity is important for some people, let's make sure it becomes a compulsory attitude and let's badmouth those who think otherwise. We can therefore proclame virigity as an "essential quality"".
Dot K,
I am sorry but plenty of people can't have children and this is no reason for annulment. I completly understand that this can lead a couple to separate, but that would be a very good reason to get divorced. By the way, the very idea of yours, stating that "not being sterile" is an essential quality is so scary to me! I truly hope you'll never be in charge of defining the law! Do you know some other human caracters that you would define as qualities by law? (long legs? plenty of hair? not being sick?)
By the way, there are other ways to mak children nowadays. Thanks for all those who can't make children, who go through adopting children, reading this blog, who will be happy to learn that they lack an "essential quality".
Posted by: Dominique | 2 Jun 2008 15:39:24
In any case, all of this is becoming pointless. Chirurgical operations allow young woman to make stupid males believe they are virgins eventhough they are not.
All this religious hypocrisie is really absurd. It's all fake purity. L'apparence, l'apparence, encore et toujours. What counts? that people believe womans are virgins. The truth? it does not matter, it is all a question of "bienpensence" .
Just like for abortion, it is always the woman who bears the risks. Males can go fishing, woman have to go to surgery. What a shame.
Posted by: Dominique | 2 Jun 2008 15:47:22
"Dot K,
I am sorry but plenty of people can't have children and this is no reason for annulment."
Dominique - I think you are answering Maggie's point not mine - I can see her points but they aren't my way of seeing things.
This is what i said to Maggie:
"I can see the logic in your arguments, and agree with you to an extent, but Oh! How clinical it all becomes when virginity and/or sterility are considered, and indeed, required "essential qualities" in a partner."
I had asked what happened to love and respect and consideration. Of course I'm not in favour of reducing anyone solely to their ability to reproduce or not, nor their virginity, nor their wallet even. I think if you reread the posts you'll see that your answer is for Maggie.
BTW I would never have used sterility as an example - I hadn't even thought of it before Maggie introduced it.
Posted by: dot king | 2 Jun 2008 16:26:15
Sorry Dot, you are right..i was answering to Magg!
Posted by: Dominique | 2 Jun 2008 16:46:12
"Since virginity is important for some people, let's make sure it becomes a compulsory attitude and let's badmouth those who think otherwise. We can therefore proclame virigity as an "essential quality""."
WHAT ???????? Are you nuts ? Where do you read that in the judgement ? It never said that virginity is an essential quality, I guess it meant that in this particular relationship, it was considered as essential.
I just can't believe it ! The guy says he prefers his wife to be a virgin when he marries her (which is his right), the woman LIES, so you expect the guy to forget whatever his principles are just like that. A marriage is about love but also about trust. And clearly, this wedding started on the wrong foot.
So would you prefer they stayed together in an unhappy marriage ? Or would you prefer a divorce (par consentement mutuel) which would be for the very same reason ?
I simply don't understand !
Posted by: Sandrine | 2 Jun 2008 17:06:15
Dot, the point is that he did specifically ask before hand. Clearly it was a condition to his agreement. If he never asked or cared and then used it as pretext for annuling the marriage, that would have been a problem. Since both parties wanted the marriage annuled, I dont see what the big deal is here.
Why the big fuss about this case? Is it because they are muslims? Is it any different to those celebrities who annul their hasty marriages after deciding they made a mistake? Why is there no fuss when the Catholic church annuls marriages in which there are children just so one spouse can re-marry within the faith?
Hypocrisy thy name is religion.
Posted by: Daisy | 2 Jun 2008 17:11:05