What's the Matter With France?

A.P. reports that French politicians across the political spectrum are outraged by a judge's decision (noted this morning by Katherine Mangu-Ward) to grant a recently married Muslim couple an annulment because the bride misrepresented herself as a virgin. "The ruling ending the Muslim couple's union," A.P. says, "has stunned France and raised concerns that the country's much-cherished secular values are losing ground to cultural traditions from its fast-growing immigrant communities." I don't get it, just as I did not understand why so many Frenchmen thought it was imperative to ban headscarves from schools. This case seems like a straightforward application of a contract, albeit one constrained by laws regulating marriage:

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.

The court decision "is a real fatwa against the emancipation and liberty of women. We are returning to the past," said Urban Affairs Minister Fadela Amara, the daughter of immigrants from Muslim North Africa.

Notably, the wife, presumably suffering from false consciousness, joined the husband in seeking the annulment and has no desire to challenge the outcome or to publicize the case:

The hitch is that both the young woman and the man at the center of the drama are opposed to an appeal, according to their lawyers. The names of the woman, a student in her 20s, and the man, an engineer in his 30s, have not been disclosed.

The young woman's lawyer, Charles-Edouard Mauger, said she was distraught by the dragging out of the humiliating case. In an interview on Europe 1 radio, he quoted her as saying: "I don't know who's trying to think in my place. I didn't ask for anything....I wasn't the one who asked for the media attention, for people to talk about it, and for this to last so long."

Yet critics of the ruling, including the justice minister and the prime minister, insist it must be challenged because it represents a defeat for feminism and secularism. Evidently women's freedom must be restricted to protect their freedom: They cannot be allowed to enter into whatever contracts they choose or make their own legal decisions because they might misuse those rights. Just to be clear, that is the feminist position. As for the secularist imperative, which in France is strong enough to override the free exercise of religion, I do not understand how it can co-exist with legal principles that empower aggrieved religious groups to punish people for speech that offends them. How can the same country that fears Muslims are taking over when they insist on wearing headscarves or marrying virgins prosecute a novelist for contempt of Islam?

[Thanks to Mark Tarnowski for the tip.]

Comments

SugarFree | June 5, 2008, 3:54pm | #

So two guys divorced their wife for lying about being a virgin? I am so confused.

John | June 5, 2008, 3:54pm | #

There is certainly a point to be made that freedom means the freedom to engage in misogynistic barbaric practices and abandon your wife when she is revealed to not be a virgin. But of course the issue here is does the state have the authority not to give an annulment under these circumstances? Yes, this clown can always leave his wife for whatever primitive reason he wants. But does the state owe him the sanction of such actions by giving an annulment versus an ordinary divorce? I would say the people of France through their elected officials have every right to deny an annulment for whatever reason they chose. It is not like they are saying that the couple must stay together. They are only saying that we should not grant the extraordinary legal remedy of invalidating the marriage alltogether versus just ending the marriage for such a reason. Understand if it is anulled, the marriage does not exist. The women has no claim on her husband's property or any of the normal rights of a spouse. They are depriving her of those rights based on a primative social mores never contemplated under the law. Reason makes it sound like they want to stop their from being a divorce. That is not true.

SugarFree | June 5, 2008, 3:58pm | #

John,

If I sign a contract to sell you my car, you pay me and it turns out to actually be a moped, how much of the money do I have to give back? Can I keep some?

kinnath | June 5, 2008, 4:00pm | #

Unwind John. Forget the virginity angle.

Two people entered into a verbal agreement to join into a single household. One person made false statements about the "assets" being brought forward. Therefore the agreement should be voided, not disolved after the fact.

Why these two people (one even just one of the two) felt virginity was an important of the agreement is irrelevant.

Brian Sorgatz | June 5, 2008, 4:01pm | #

I would say the people of France through their elected officials have every right to deny an annulment for whatever reason they chose. It is not like they are saying that the couple must stay together. They are only saying that we should not grant the extraordinary legal remedy of invalidating the marriage alltogether versus just ending the marriage for such a reason.

As with the gay-marriage issue here in the States, I'm scratching my head wondering why the state needs to involve itself in the marriage contract at all.

The communication gap between Jacob and the French arises partly from the fact that, for some strange reason, human cultures don't automatically or naturally favor individual liberty. They should, but they usually don't.

John | June 5, 2008, 4:03pm | #

"If I sign a contract to sell you my car, you pay me and it turns out to actually be a moped, how much of the money do I have to give back? Can I keep some?"

One, is it a valid contract to sign promising your virginity and so valid that you can legally void the marriage as opposed to just ending it? There are a lot of good public policy reasons, namely not giving dead beat men a chance to abandon their wives, to say no that is not a contract enforceable in court. Understand we are not talking about a divorce here. We are talking about an annulment. An annulment allows this loser to walk away from his wife as if the marriage didn't occur. That is a drastic measure and one rarely granted at least in the US. Should France give this guy an annulment for this reason or just tell him to get a divorce if he thinks his wife lied to him? Fuck no. By giving him an annulment, the government is saying that a women not being a virgin and lying about it is a special sin worthy of special measures. Note, if the women had lied about anything else, say being a good cook, the remedy would be a divorce not an annulment. In granting an annulment versus a divorce, the court is accepting and legitimizing the barbaric culture that says women are somehow unclean and unworthy if they are not virgins when they marry.

Warren | June 5, 2008, 4:04pm | #

Way I heard it, he didn't care if she was a virgin. He just didn't want to be hitched to [Sam Kinison voice] A LYING LITTLE BIIIIIIITCH! OH OH OOOHHHHH! [/Sam Kinison voice]

John | June 5, 2008, 4:07pm | #

Even from a contract prospective, this is still a crazy result. Understand that an annulement says the marriage never occured versus just ending the marriage. If this women had lied about something else, no way would the court give an annulement. Why is this so special that it warrents an annulement versus a divorce? This is not like gay marriage at all. This clown isn't asking to get out of the marriage. He is asking for the law to come in and say the marriage never happened. The government of France doesn't owe him that. Fuck him. Give him a divorce and live with the consiquences. No one says he has to stay married, only that he cannot deny the marriage ever occured.

Nigel Watt | June 5, 2008, 4:09pm | #

John, if I bring you a moped and expect payment for the car, you never agreed to give me the money. That's an annulment.

Episiarch | June 5, 2008, 4:11pm | #

The frogs are in a bit of cognitive dissonance with the Muslims. Their multicultural impulses cause them to accept certain behavior, but they don't like it. But when it clashes with "French Values ®" it gives them an excuse to vent their actual dislike of the "immigrants" (many who were born in France).

They are deathly afraid of criticizing the Muslims and being called racists, but this situation gave them an opportunity because they were supposedly standing up for women's rights, and that victim group superseded the other.

John | June 5, 2008, 4:12pm | #

"John, if I bring you a moped and expect payment for the car, you never agreed to give me the money. That's an annulment."

WTF? If I agree to sell you a car and don't perform on it or try to pass off a moped as a car, there is still a contract. We don't anul the contract. I just have to pay you damages for breaching the contract. Here, both parties entered into the marriage, this guy doesn't like how it worked out and the remedy is for him to get a divorce. The remedy is not for him to get the court to pretend the marriage never existed.

matt | June 5, 2008, 4:13pm | #

Islam aside, what other misrepresentations could be judged serious enough to warrant annulment?

Should a marriage be annulled if one of the two misrepresents their wealth? What if one misrepresents their personal tastes ("I hate jazz and I always have", etc)?

Where should the line be drawn?

Art-P.O.G. | June 5, 2008, 4:14pm | #

John, my guess is he found out real fast. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't annulments generally used within the first several months or so of a marriage?

dbcooper | June 5, 2008, 4:14pm | #

Interesting posts John. The question I have is though, how long were they married? Don't many countries annul marriages within the first 12 months or so? If he sought to end the marriage after such a period I can't see why he was granted a special remedy beyond divorce.

ed | June 5, 2008, 4:19pm | #

Yaaaawn. Getting sleepy...sleepy...

troy | June 5, 2008, 4:20pm | #

"Notably, the wife, presumably suffering from false consciousness, joined ....

If this is joined as in the legal since, then that is tantamount to a stipulated motion or petition. The parties should be able to agree amongst themselves a particular legal outcome if the law provides one. So I don't see what the outrage is either. Personally i would like a few miles under the hood but a lot people want their brand new car to have few miles.

kinnath | June 5, 2008, 4:20pm | #

An annulment allows this loser to walk away from his wife as if the marriage didn't occur.

Let's make this clear John. I despise the medieval culture of the fundamentalist muslims. But in this case, I tend to sympathize with the groom. He said wasn't upset about her not being a virgin. He was upset because she lied about being a virgin. It is impossible to create a marriage when one of the participant lies about something this basic.

Mark | June 5, 2008, 4:20pm | #

What's the matter with France?

It's full of French?

Nephilium | June 5, 2008, 4:21pm | #

John:

Maybe people would be right in fighting for this to be changed... if the woman involved in the case wanted people to. She wants everyone to drop it.

Nephilium

Russ 2000 | June 5, 2008, 4:21pm | #

Is virginity or lack thereof a legal grouds for fraud in the US? If not, I suspect most US citizens would go apeshit if we made an exception to that for Muslims. So I don't understand why anyone would think the French would think it's okey-dokey to make a religious exception.

the oddsmaker | June 5, 2008, 4:22pm | #

,i>It is impossible to create a marriage when one of the participant lies about something this basic.

I'm offering 5 to 1 odds that Kinnath is single and 20 to 1 odds that he's male.

Steve | June 5, 2008, 4:23pm | #

I don't understand who's hurt by this ruling. He wanted an annulment, she wanted an annulment, they got an annulment. What's the problem?

the oddsmaker | June 5, 2008, 4:24pm | #

And 20 to 1 odds that I'll never master html to the point where I no longer need to use preview.

The first sentence was a quote.

kinnath | June 5, 2008, 4:26pm | #

If these were two fundamentalist christians in the US and both bride and groom had promised to stay virgins until marriage; then one party lying about being a virgin should warrant an annulment, not a divorce.

ChicagoTom | June 5, 2008, 4:27pm | #

If this women had lied about something else, no way would the court give an annulement.

The article I read about this had mentioned an example of the french courts giving an annulment to a couple because it was found out by the husband that his wife lied about not being a prostitute before they got together.
The french didn't seem to mind that?

What is the difference?

Lying about your past and misrepresenting yourself in order to seem more attractive or to be considered marriage material to a mate isn't valid grounds for annulment?

One person lying to the other about themselves is fraud.

Brian Courts | June 5, 2008, 4:27pm | #

Should a marriage be annulled if one of the two misrepresents their wealth? What if one misrepresents their personal tastes ("I hate jazz and I always have", etc)?

Where should the line be drawn?

The same principles would apply here that apply to any contract. I don't see why this would be any more of a problem with respect to marriage. Typically the party suing for misrepresentation has to show that the other party lied about some objective fact and that he was induced to enter the contract based on that falsehood.

Clearly wealth would qualify if one party lied about it to induce the other person to marry him or her. Taste in music is probably too subjective, but as in any contract, it would depend on what you could prove in court.

kinnath | June 5, 2008, 4:29pm | #

I'm offering 5 to 1 odds that Kinnath is single and 20 to 1 odds that he's male.

I'll take the first bet for $1,000.

Married to the same women for 32 years, two adult children, four grandchildren, retired Roman Catholic.

Fluffy | June 5, 2008, 4:30pm | #

Note, if the women had lied about anything else, say being a good cook, the remedy would be a divorce not an annulment.

How do you know? Can you tell me what misrepresentations are and are not grounds for an annulment in French law?

Besides, whether or not one is "a good cook" is subjective and therefore not really a matter subject to misrepresentation. If someone misrepresents a material fact, why shouldn't that void the contract?

The reasons people are up in arms over this [people who would ordinarily stand up for the right to contract] are pretty simple: you have Christofascist scum who hate Muslims and since the plaintiff is a Muslim, it's totally OK to make misrepresentations to him and he should just go back to work at the Quik-E-Mart and shut up; and you have feminists who want to make sure that the sexual freedom of women is unencumbered by silly annoyances like the personal preference or individual judgment of a potential male marriage partner.

Johnny Stecchino | June 5, 2008, 4:30pm | #

The french are a crazy bunch. I was there during the whole headscarves thing and they passionately argued that it wasn't discrimination because the law also said that they wouldn't be able to wear a giant cross around their neck. Seriously.

Invisible Finger | June 5, 2008, 4:30pm | #

If you put 12,000 miles on a used car and then claim it's a lemon, you'd get laughed out of court. Likewise, if this guy fucked his non-virgin wife more than once, I'd say he's fulla shit.

These 2 French Muslims obviously have an amicable divorce. But the guy here wants some court blessing for a faith-based indulgence. Tough fuckin' shit in my book, that ain't the government's job.

ChicagoTom | June 5, 2008, 4:31pm | #

I don't understand who's hurt by this ruling. He wanted an annulment, she wanted an annulment, they got an annulment. What's the problem?

The problem, for many of the french who are whining about this, seems to be that the law isn't invalidating Muslim ideals that the french deem archaic and ugly.

No one who has a problem with this seems to want to look past the virginity part. It isn't about virginity, it's the lying to the spouse that is the problem.

Reinmoose | June 5, 2008, 4:31pm | #

Ok, that post above was me - although Johnny Stecchino would probably have said something similar

jorgen | June 5, 2008, 4:32pm | #

The idea behind divorce settlement is that two people have invested a lot in eachother and shouldn't be able to just walk away from eachother. The only reason not to grant an annulment after a few days, or a few weeks or whatever it was is if there was a significant investment during that period, such as sex for those who are very particular about that. I think that if the couple wants to walk away from this and say it never happened, they should be free to do so.

John | June 5, 2008, 4:33pm | #

"Article 180 of the Civil Code states that when a couple enters into a marriage, if the "essential qualities" of a spouse are misrepresented, then "the other spouse can seek the nullity of the marriage." Past examples of marriages that were annulled include a husband found to be impotent and a wife who was a prostitute, according to attorney Xavier Labbee."

That is from the article. The court held that being a virgin was an "essential quality" of a spouse in this case. After this case, a husband in France can demand that his wife be a virgin and if she lies about it, get the marriage annulled. I can see where the people of France object to that. Since you can only tell for sure that a women is a virgin, it is completely one sided against women. This is not a freedom issue, this is a legal sanction issue. No one is saying that you shouldn't be able to divorce your wife for whatever reason you like no matter how barbaric. The issue is should the law recognize Muslim cultural norms to such an extent that it considers being a virgin an "essential quality" of a marriage. My answer is hell no.

Steve | June 5, 2008, 4:34pm | #

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment

If the consent to the marriage was based on fraud or force;

and

One partner had been deceived by the other in order to obtain consent, and if the partner had been aware of the truth, would not have consented to marry


Doesn't seem out of the ordinary to me, if he had known that she wasn't a virgin he would not have agreed to marry her, she lied (fraud) about being a virgin knowing that the truth would have kept him from agreeing to the marriage. Seems legitimate grounds for an annulment, yes?

Reinmoose | June 5, 2008, 4:34pm | #

The reasons people are up in arms over this [people who would ordinarily stand up for the right to contract] are pretty simple: you have Christofascist scum who hate Muslims and since the plaintiff is a Muslim, it's totally OK to make misrepresentations to him and he should just go back to work at the Quik-E-Mart and shut up; and you have feminists who want to make sure that the sexual freedom of women is unencumbered by silly annoyances like the personal preference or individual judgment of a potential male marriage partner.

bing bing bing!

You mean like:
I think it should be illegal for men to take certain things into consideration when deciding whether or not to marry a woman. It's not fair that they should take sexual purity into account, and he should have to deal with it because everyone gets married because they're in love, and for no other reason. If he doesn't love her just because she's not a virgin, then he doesn't share our values and doesn't deserve our legal protection.

John | June 5, 2008, 4:34pm | #

"How do you know? Can you tell me what misrepresentations are and are not grounds for an annulment in French law?"


Read the fucking article Fluffy you jackass. Is it your opinion that a women being a virgin is an "essential quality" to a marriage?

Russ 2000 | June 5, 2008, 4:35pm | #

One person lying to the other about themselves is fraud.

No it isn't. It's a lie. Fraud is an entirely different legal concept.

Steve | June 5, 2008, 4:37pm | #

The issue is should the law recognize Muslim cultural norms to such an extent that it considers being a virgin an "essential quality" of a marriage.

No they are saying it was an "essential quality in this marriage which according to the bride and groom, it was...

anon | June 5, 2008, 4:37pm | #

The headscarf ban separated the true advocates of Women's rights from those who are just anti-Muslim. This case is no different. John, a divorcee has rights under the law, so a simple divorce does not cut it. If the conditions of the marriage contract were not met , then, the contract is void plain and simple.

val | June 5, 2008, 4:37pm | #

Just wanted to mention that John's argument of annulment vs divorce is the only reasonable argument I have seen anywhere regarding this case from the 'against' side.

Steve | June 5, 2008, 4:39pm | #

No it isn't. It's a lie. Fraud is an entirely different legal concept.

Oh, you mean like when you misrepresent yourself in order to get another party to enter into a contract?

kinnath | June 5, 2008, 4:39pm | #

Is it your opinion that a women being a virgin is an "essential quality" to a marriage?

My opinion is not relevant. Your opinion is not relevant.

For two people that are adherents of a conservative religion (Orthodox Jews, Fundamental Christians, many Arabic Muslims), then yes virginity is an essential quality.

You have to argue that those religious concerns are illegitimate to rule against the groom in this case.

Fluffy | June 5, 2008, 4:41pm | #

Since you can only tell for sure that a women is a virgin, it is completely one sided against women.

Only men can be impotent, and that precedent is already on the books.

This is not a freedom issue, this is a legal sanction issue.

Right - you want to legally sanction deception, because if that's what's necessary to let you stick it to Muslims, that's what you want to do.

It honestly doesn't matter if a preference for virgins is "barbaric" or not. The only party who can declare what qualities of a potential spouse are definitive is the person doing the marrying. Do you think the plaintiff is telling the truth that virginity really mattered to him? That's really the only issue here: If the plaintiff says he would not have entered into the marriage if he had not been deceived, does the court believe him? I would believe him; there isn't even a whiff of implausibility here.

Basically you have buried yourself so deeply into your hatred of Muslims that you have reached the level of absurdity demonstrated in Plato's Republic - you want to ideologically invalidate the standards other persons used to determine what they find attractive in a mate. And that's crap. Even if it's stupid to prefer a wife who is a virgin, it's absolutely this guy's prerogative to have such a preference.

Steve | June 5, 2008, 4:42pm | #

John- you realize it's possible to get an annulment in the u.s. if the bride didn't know the groom was impotent because he lied about it, right?

Either spouse was physically incapable to be married (typically, chronically unable to have sexual intercourse) at the time of the marriage;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment

Is it your opinion that a man being able to get a woody is an "essential quality" to a marriage?

Episiarch | June 5, 2008, 4:43pm | #

You are all failing to learn the proper message here:

Never. Get. Married.

classwarrior | June 5, 2008, 4:44pm | #

It's probably not appropriate to treat this as a simple breach of contract matter. Chances are the woman faced extreme pressure from her family to marry another strict Muslim or be completely ostracized from her community, with the financial hardship of being thrown out of her family's home. Practically speaking, she probably had little choice in the matter. It sounds like she didn't care for this guy in the first place and is glad to be out of the arrangement.

Russ 2000 | June 5, 2008, 4:44pm | #

Oh, you mean like when you misrepresent yourself in order to get another party to enter into a contract?

I lie and say I have a college degree, but in fact do not. If you enter into a contract with me because I said I have a college degree, I can still fulfill the contract and therefore the college degree is immaterial.

The question here is whether virginity can be codified as a legal grounds for annulment AND whether the court can make religious exemptions. IANAL, so I don't know the answer, but I can figure out the question.

ChicagoTom | June 5, 2008, 4:45pm | #

"Article 180 of the Civil Code states that when a couple enters into a marriage, if the "essential qualities" of a spouse are misrepresented, then "the other spouse can seek the nullity of the marriage." Past examples of marriages that were annulled include a husband found to be impotent and a wife who was a prostitute, according to attorney Xavier Labbee."

So does this mean that the state has a list of essential qualities, or does it mean that couples can define for themseleves essential qualities and if they are misrepresented, then the marriage can be annulled.

If virginity is an essential quality to me, and it is misrepresented to my by my spouse...where is the problem?

You seem to be implying that virginity should never be an essential quality in anyones marriage and that anyone who holds that it is is inherently in the wrong. That seems rather prejudiced.

kinnath | June 5, 2008, 4:47pm | #

You seem to be implying that virginity should never be an essential quality in anyones marriage and that anyone who holds that it is is inherently in the wrong.

BINGO

ChicagoTom | June 5, 2008, 4:48pm | #

I lie and say I have a college degree, but in fact do not. If you enter into a contract with me because I said I have a college degree, I can still fulfill the contract and therefore the college degree is immaterial.

You have still perpetrated a fraud, regardless of how good you are at your job. The other party absolutely has a way out of the contract.

I have seen lots of people get fired from jobs they were great at because they lied about their credentials.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2008, 4:48pm | #

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to intervene.

Rhymes, schmymes.

Fluffy | June 5, 2008, 4:49pm | #

Is it your opinion that a women being a virgin is an "essential quality" to a marriage?

Your authoritarian instincts are showing again, John.

You immediately assume that the court is here ruling that virginity is an objective essential quality of all marriages, and it's doing nothing of the kind.

A quality is essential if one party would not have entered into the marriage in the absence of that quality, and if the other party knew that and tailored an appropriate deception accordingly. It doesn't matter what the quality is, as far as I am concerned, as long as it was explicit, known beforehand, and has some element that can be measured or demonstrated [i.e. no claiming "he said he was my soulmate and he isn't!"].

P Brooks | June 5, 2008, 4:50pm | #

I always wanted a red Ferrari; if it's not red, it's just not a real Ferrari. I find a Ferrari advertised, and after haggling over the phone with the owner (during which negotiation I make my preferences clear, and he assures me it's exactly what I have been looking for) I agree to buy it.

When I arrive to pick it up and close the deal, I discover the damned thing is gunmetal grey. It's the right model, clean, not a scratch or dent, runs like a scalded dog, but it's not red. Should he be able to take me into court and compel me to take it?

Rhywun | June 5, 2008, 4:51pm | #

Chances are the woman faced extreme pressure from her family to marry another strict Muslim or be completely ostracized from her community, with the financial hardship of being thrown out of her family's home.

Thank you. That has been my thought precisely. Not every human transaction boils down to a piece of paper.

Reinmoose | June 5, 2008, 4:51pm | #

Maybe this guy can go to Muslima.com (the ad at the top of our screen)

Fug Girls | June 5, 2008, 4:51pm | #

You might as well ask Lindsey Lohan what's the matter with pants!

Brian Courts | June 5, 2008, 4:52pm | #

No one who has a problem with this seems to want to look past the virginity part. It isn't about virginity, it's the lying to the spouse that is the problem.

Yes, I think ChicagoTom is right that the virginity issue is overshadowing the real issue. People ought to be able to seek any trivial (to me) trait in another person they want. If someone doesn't want to marry anyone who has ever been to Disneyland and the other person lies and says she hasn't when in fact she's ridden the Matterhorn more than a few times, it doesn't matter that the rest of us think that's stupid.

The problem with this ruling though, as I mentioned on the other thread about this case, is the language the court used, "an error in the essential qualities of the bride" which seems to imply that they are accepting lack of virginity as prima facie evidence of misrepresentation. If not, why even venture into contemplating "essential qualities"? Just say she lied, he relied on that, end of story. Instead it's like they're saying "What? She's not a virgin? 'Nuff said, judgement for the plaintiff!" Of course I haven't read the actual article or decision, but if that's the case then it is the right result but based on terrible reasoning.

In short, the virginity and "essential qualities" crap should be irrelevant, the lying is all that matters.

Reinmoose | June 5, 2008, 4:53pm | #

Chances are the woman faced extreme pressure from her family to marry another strict Muslim or be completely ostracized from her community, with the financial hardship of being thrown out of her family's home.

Thank you. That has been my thought precisely. Not every human transaction boils down to a piece of paper.

I don't understand what the implication of these statements is. Do... you think they shouldn't be allowed to get an annulment because her family wouldn't like her anymore?

kinnath | June 5, 2008, 4:53pm | #

We hire judges to make value judgements, because it is simply not possible to predict every future predicament that must be settled in court.

If a 88-year-old women seeks an annulment because her newly married 92-year-old husband can't get it up, I would expect a judge to throw the case out. Not the same as 32-year-old woman finding out her new 35-year-old husband had a motorcycly accident and can't get it up.

I would expect that a judge should issue an annulment if a devoutly religious person said that virginity was an essential quality that he/she expected in a spouse.

John | June 5, 2008, 4:54pm | #

"Basically you have buried yourself so deeply into your hatred of Muslims that you have reached the level of absurdity demonstrated in Plato's Republic - you want to ideologically invalidate the standards other persons used to determine what they find attractive in a mate. And that's crap. Even if it's stupid to prefer a wife who is a virgin, it's absolutely this guy's prerogative to have such a preference."

No, it is not about his preference. He can have any preference he likes and is free to divorce the women. What he is not entitled to is the state endorsing his preference by declaring "being a virgin" an essential quality of his spouse and given the extraordinary remedy of an annulment versus an ordinary divorce. Note that this is different that impotence, which is the most common ground for annulment. The state recognizes that sex and children are the purposes of marriage and is willing to give an extra ordinary remedy when someone lies about that subject. Virginity is entirely different. It only applies to women so it is fundamentally unfair. Also, when someone is impotent the other party is measurably harmed because they can't have children in that marriage. The marriage ceases to function for the purpose it was created because they can't have sex and can't have children. In this case, there is nothing stopping this guy from having sex or children or any other aspect of married life. He is just angry his wife wasn't a virgin. Well, the remedy for that is divorce not annulment.

I don't hate Muslims. If you knew anything about Muslims you would know that most of them are not hung up on their wives being virgins. This is not a Muslim issue, it is a cultural issue. There is nothing about Islam that necessarily means that you have to be this way. Lots of Muslims are not.

If you were not such a PC weenie who thinks that anything brown people do must be great, you would realize what a horrible decision this is and how bad it is for women in France.

Fluffy | June 5, 2008, 4:55pm | #

It's probably not appropriate to treat this as a simple breach of contract matter. Chances are the woman faced extreme pressure from her family to marry another strict Muslim or be completely ostracized from her community, with the financial hardship of being thrown out of her family's home.

Actually, had the court recognized any of these facts, THAT I would have found to be inappropriately catering to Muslims.

I don't want to hear any sob stories about how tough it is to grow up a Muslim, and how that's why you lied to induce someone to enter into a contract with you.

If we provided this woman with a right to commit a fraud to trick someone into entering a contract with her because she was raised in a Muslim household and felt pressure to get married, that would be much, much worse than the ruling of the court here.

the oddsmaker | June 5, 2008, 4:56pm | #

kinnath | June 5, 2008, 4:29pm | #
I'm offering 5 to 1 odds that Kinnath is single and 20 to 1 odds that he's male.

I'll take the first bet for $1,000.

Married to the same women for 32 years, two adult children, four grandchildren, retired Roman Catholic.

Okay, okay, I'll pay up, but only if you are ready to tell me that dishonesty has never once entered your marriage.

val | June 5, 2008, 4:57pm | #

John, I get your argument, however, you can still have children even if the male is impotent.

Reinmoose | June 5, 2008, 5:01pm | #

Look,
there's a giant connection between the "essential quality" argument and the "she lied" argument, in that she lied that she had an essential quality. The only way the "essential quality" argument doesn't hold up to the same standards as the "she lied" argument is if he had made an assumption that she was a virgin and then found out she wasn't. If she explicitly told him that she was, it was both a lie and a lack of a mutually agreed upon "essential quality."

John | June 5, 2008, 5:01pm | #

"You seem to be implying that virginity should never be an essential quality in anyones marriage and that anyone who holds that it is is inherently in the wrong. That seems rather prejudiced."

Yeah it is. Some things are worthy of prejudice. Do you think that it is a great thing? The idea that a woman should be a virgin at marriage, note of course no one ever asks the man, is sexist as hell and based on the primitive idea that a woman who has had sex is somehow unclean and unfit for other men. Yeah, I am prejudiced as hell against that idea. Just you are prejudiced as hell against people who think it is morally wrong for people of different races to marry.

Let me ask you and Fuffy this. If some white supremacist cracker here in the US married a women who lied about her being all white and he later found out that she really had a grandmother who was black, do you think that he would be entitled to an annulment? If not why not? Aren't the two parties allowed to determine what is "essential" in the other side? Isn't pretty prejudiced of you to think less of him for not wanting to be married to someone who is part black?

It amazes me how once you move out of the context of the US and start talking about other people how people's morals and judgment go right out the window. Warren, you would tell the white supremacist to go screw himself and you should do the same here. Just because he is brown doesn't make him right.

P Brooks | June 5, 2008, 5:01pm | #

Neither of these people seems particularly distraught over the dissolution of the marriage; what are the odds, Mr Oddsmaker, that this was an arranged marriage which neither of them found particularly appealing?

It might not be an ideal solution,but each is now free to go his/ her own merry, unattached, way.

Fluffy | June 5, 2008, 5:03pm | #

If you were not such a PC weenie who thinks that anything brown people do must be great

Yeah, that's me. The PC weenie who thinks that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is tyrannical, and who regularly posts that hotels and restaurants should be allowed to exclude blacks if that's the owner's choice. PC Fluffy.

you would realize what a horrible decision this is and how bad it is for women in France.

The point is that I don't care if it's good or bad for women in France, because the social utility of the ruling is irrelevant to me.

That means I don't have to care about the symbolism of it, I don't have to care about the cultural implications of it, and I don't have to care about whether or not it advances some chimera of "social justice". Because none of that BS should have any place in the law.

Individual justice should be the sole province of all law. Certainly all civil law. And that means that if one party lies to another to induce them to enter into a contract, that party should be denied ANY benefit from that action. In this case, that means stripping the lying non-virgin of any marital benefit, and an annulment accomplishes that where a divorce would not.

We have a plaintiff who - it is not disputed - made clear that he only wanted to marry a virgin, and a defendant who heard that and chose to lie. Case closed. Next case. Oh, does that offend women? Too bad.

Zeno | June 5, 2008, 5:03pm | #

And the alternative? That the state FORCE the unhappy uncouple to remain legally married?

No matter the downsides, the ability to divorce without requirements is probably a net good.

Citizen Nothing | June 5, 2008, 5:04pm | #

John, what if the man had told the woman he'd never had sex before, then some proof was presented immediately after the wedding that he'd been lying and the woman wanted out?

Fluffy | June 5, 2008, 5:04pm | #

Let me ask you and Fuffy this. If some white supremacist cracker here in the US married a women who lied about her being all white and he later found out that she really had a grandmother who was black, do you think that he would be entitled to an annulment?

Yes. Absolutely.

Next question.

John | June 5, 2008, 5:04pm | #

"We have a plaintiff who - it is not disputed - made clear that he only wanted to marry a virgin, and a defendant who heard that and chose to lie. Case closed. Next case. Oh, does that offend women? Too bad."

Ok Fuffy. what about the White Supremicist who wants an annulment because his wife has a black relative? What do you think about that? How is this any different?

kinnath | June 5, 2008, 5:05pm | #

Okay, okay, I'll pay up, but only if you are ready to tell me that dishonesty has never once entered your marriage.

You are on the hook for $5K dude.

No, I haven't been dishonest with my wife. And I don't believe she has been dishonest with me.

Also don't confuse dishonesty during the courtship leading up to marriage with dishonesty during the marriage. One leads to annulment, the other to divorce.

On my way out the door, so no more posts from me.

ChicagoTom | June 5, 2008, 5:07pm | #

What he is not entitled to is the state endorsing his preference by declaring "being a virgin" an essential quality of his spouse and given the extraordinary remedy of an annulment versus an ordinary divorce

Uhmm....they are stating that being a virgin was an essential quality, TO HIM, and his spouse deceiving him warranted an annulment.

The ruling doesn't seem to make virginity an essential quality to ALL marriages.

Also, when someone is impotent the other party is measurably harmed because they can't have children in that marriage. The marriage ceases to function for the purpose it was created because they can't have sex and can't have children.

Who are you to tell others what the function and purpose of marriage is?

He is just angry his wife wasn't a virgin. Well, the remedy for that is divorce not annulment.

No, he is angry that he was deceived. Why do you keep ignoring that point and pretending like that isn't the reason he stated for the divorce?

Shorter John:
"These people should live by my values"

Rhywun | June 5, 2008, 5:07pm | #

If it's just about the lying, then I'd expect to see a lot more annulments going forward.

John | June 5, 2008, 5:07pm | #

"Yes. Absolutely.

Next question."

I call shenanigans. You are totally talking out of your ass. No way would you endorse that if you hadn't talked yourself into such a corner on this issue. Further, what you are really saying that every divorce should be an annulment then. Any lie about anything should justify an annulment. You are confusing annulment with divorce. No one is saying this guy shouldn't be able to get a divorce, only that he is not entitled to an extraordinary remedy of an annulment.

Russ 2000 | June 5, 2008, 5:08pm | #

You have still perpetrated a fraud, regardless of how good you are at your job. The other party absolutely has a way out of the contract.

Not at all. The other party hasn't suffered any harm.

ChicagoTom | June 5, 2008, 5:08pm | #

Ok Fuffy. what about the White Supremicist who wants an annulment because his wife has a black relative? What do you think about that? How is this any different?

If she knew he felt this way, and knew she had a black relative, and lied about it -- it shouldn't be any different.

Why is this so difficult?

Episiarch | June 5, 2008, 5:09pm | #

Let me ask you and Fuffy this. If some white supremacist cracker here in the US married a women who lied about her being all white and he later found out that she really had a grandmother who was black, do you think that he would be entitled to an annulment?

Yes. Absolutely.

Next question.

OK Mister SmartyPants, who is the last cylon?

Russ 2000 | June 5, 2008, 5:10pm | #

And the alternative? That the state FORCE the unhappy uncouple to remain legally married?

Can you not read? The court will grant the divorce with no problem. An annulment is something else entirely.

ChicagoTom | June 5, 2008, 5:10pm | #

Not at all. The other party hasn't suffered any harm.

They may not be able to get any damages from a civil suit, but they would be able to terminate the contract for fraud.

Misrepresenting yourself to deceive another party to get something you want that they wouldn't give you if you were honest is fraud. Regardless of how stuff worked out eventually.

Rhywun | June 5, 2008, 5:10pm | #

The ruling doesn't seem to make virginity an essential quality to ALL marriages.

Sure it does. From now on, all a Frenchman has to do to get out of a marriage is say "she told me she was a virgin".

John | June 5, 2008, 5:10pm | #

Same goes for you Warren. You are really just saying that anytime someone lies going into a marriage that person should be entitled to an annullement. That is not the law and that is not what is going on here. The white supremicist would never get an annullment. The French court is giving special status and legal sanction to this particular cutural mores where it wouldn't in other cases. This is not a freedom issue, it is an issue of special status. Why is this guy entitled to sanction that most other people would not get?

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2008, 5:11pm | #

This is why government's role in marriage is so danged bad. What he should be doing is pointing to Section 13(a)(iii) of the Marriage Agreement, which clearly states that he can annul if she turns out to be a lying slut. Unfortunately, we have, in our great wisdom, allowed the government this power over our lives.

Episiarch,

Mal Reynolds.

Brian Courts | June 5, 2008, 5:13pm | #

Not at all. The other party hasn't suffered any harm.

Actual harm is not an element of misrepresentation. All that matters is that you lied about an objective fact that the other person relied on in entering the contract.

Again, people have the right to look for any conditions they want, no matter how stupid you might think they are. It's not your right to decide their desires are trivial and lie in order to induce them to engage in some transaction with you. Allowing that goes against a pretty fundamental tenet of freedom in my mind.

Fluffy | June 5, 2008, 5:14pm | #

Further, what you are really saying that every divorce should be an annulment then. Any lie about anything should justify an annulment.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that any lie offered to satisfy an explicit and known condition of the marriage should be grounds for annulment.

If you explicitly say, "I will only marry you if you are white," and the other party, knowing they are black, says, "Well, yes, I'm white. Certainly. Let's go get married!" that should be grounds for an annulment.

But if your spouse finds out in an offhand way that you lied when you said you were working late, and that you really went to watch the Celtics game at your friend's house instead - no, that would not be grounds for an annulment.

I call shenanigans. You are totally talking out of your ass. No way would you endorse that if you hadn't talked yourself into such a corner on this issue.

Um, no. It's called not being intellectually dishonest. Based on the premises I have argued here, I would have no grounds for objecting to the white supremacist's request for an annulment. You tried to run the reductio on me, but I am a hard person to do that too because I am perfectly willing to suck it up and stomach the offensive example. So you have successfully demonstrated to me that my support for the principle of fair dealing in contracts forces me to support the petition of a deceived white supremacist seeking an annulment. Oh well.

ChicagoTom | June 5, 2008, 5:15pm | #

Sure it does. From now on, all a Frenchman has to do to get out of a marriage is say "she told me she was a virgin".


1. In this case, both parties are agreeing that marriage was contingent upon her being a virgin. She didn't dispute that she lied to him, nor that his entering the marriage was contingent upon her being a virgin. That seems to make a bit of a difference.

2. So? How is that inherently bad.

The Wine Commonsewer | June 5, 2008, 5:15pm | #

Find me a case where a French Catholic get a state (not church) annulment on the same grounds and I'll throw in with you.

Since you can only tell for sure that a woman is a virgin...

What? I don't think there's any money back guarantee on *that* test. You pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

Should a marriage be annulled if one of the two misrepresents their wealth

My grandfather and his second wife both did this. Each married thinking the other one had some cash. Joke was on them both.

They are deathly afraid of criticizing the Muslims

And they are sitting on a powder keg that one day will splatter them like Gallagher's watermelon.

One person lying to the other about themselves is fraud.

Well, then I guess that's grounds for annulment of most marriages.....

bubba | June 5, 2008, 5:15pm | #

She lied about being a virgin. She thought he'd get over it.

He didn't.

They BOTH decided that under the circumstances, the marriage wasn't going to work out.

So, an annulment.

BFD.

John | June 5, 2008, 5:16pm | #

"Again, people have the right to look for any conditions they want, no matter how stupid you might think they are. It's not your right to decide their desires are trivial and lie in order to induce them to engage in some transaction with you. Allowing that goes against a pretty fundamental tenet of freedom in my mind."

That is great and if that were the law you might have a point. But that is not the law. I could not go into a French court and claim that my wife lied to me about her race or that the rug matched the drapes and get an annulement. You only get an annulement in a few very special circumstances. You people are acting like you can get an annullement for anything. You can't. What is happening here is this guy is getting an annulement because the court has deemed this cutural norm special and worthy of special legal consideration versus say my concern that my wife's hair be her natural color or any other crazy consideration.

D.A. Ridgely | June 5, 2008, 5:18pm | #

Married to the same women for 32 years, two adult children, four grandchildren, retired Roman Catholic.

Wow! I've heard of lapsed but never retired Roman Catholics! Did you get a watch?

Fluffy | June 5, 2008, 5:19pm | #

That is not the law and that is not what is going on here. The white supremicist would never get an annullment. The French court is giving special status and legal sanction to this particular cutural mores where it wouldn't in other cases.

The fact that the court would [might?] deny justice to a white supremacist is no excuse for them to deny justice to a Muslim.

ChicagoTom | June 5, 2008, 5:20pm | #

Well, then I guess that's grounds for annulment of most marriages.....

Another person being purposely obtuse.

Lying about yourself to get someone to marry you is and should be grounds for annulment.

Please don't play dumb.

ChicagoTom | June 5, 2008, 5:21pm | #

What is happening here is this guy is getting an annulement because the court has deemed this cutural norm special and worthy of special legal consideration versus say my concern that my wife's hair be her natural color or any other crazy consideration.

Shorter John: "THE BARBARIC MUSLIMS AREN'T BEING REPUDIATED --- WAAAAH!"'

Fluffy | June 5, 2008, 5:24pm | #

I could not go into a French court and claim that my wife lied to me about her race or that the rug matched the drapes and get an annulement.

Well, now you're the one who should go read the fucking article.

The court specifically stated that while virginity might not be an essential element of all marriages, it was acknowledged to be an essential element of this marriage.

This means that if you could similarly convince the court that your opposition to the use of hair dye was an essential element of your decision to enter into marriage, you would get a fair hearing. If they shot you down, it would be because they didn't believe you. They would pass judgment on the credibility of your statement that this was decisive for you, and not the preference itself.

Rhywun | June 5, 2008, 5:28pm | #

In this case, both parties are agreeing that marriage was contingent upon her being a virgin.

Well, once your husband is dragging you to court for an annulment, I think that means the relationship is over regardless of what they agreed upon. I wouldn't fight to remain married to the jerk either. In fact, she knows she's better off with the annulment rather than the divorce when it comes to future marriage prospects - of course she'll agree to it. And that includes saying she lied about being a virgin even if that never happened.

Russ 2000 | June 5, 2008, 5:29pm | #

Actual harm is not an element of misrepresentation.

But actual harm IS an element of fraud. Which is what annulment (not divorce) is based on.

| June 5, 2008, 5:30pm | #

Maybe she lost her virginity by riding a horse?

Rhywun | June 5, 2008, 5:31pm | #

If they shot you down, it would be because they didn't believe you.

And they didn't believe you because, unlike virginity, natural hair color is not an accepted prerequisite for a bride in any culture they're aware of.

troy | June 5, 2008, 5:32pm | #

I think this is way to much bandwidth to be wasted on a used cooter.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2008, 5:33pm | #

I just looked at the wiki entry on annulment. It jibes more or less on what I remember from what I learned about annulment in the family law section of my bar review course, years ago. Here's the kicker (this entry follows U.S. common law, from what I can tell):

Grounds for a marriage being voidable or void ab initio vary in different legal jurisdictions, but are typically limited to fraud, bigamy, and mental incompetence including the following:. . .If the consent to the marriage was based on fraud.

If lying about her virginity fraudulently induced him to marry her, it would seem to be reasonable grounds for annulment. I don't see that rejecting her for her lack of virginity is so bad as to make this against public policy.

| June 5, 2008, 5:33pm | #

What about all the guys who tell their girlfriends that "everything will change" after the wedding?

If that's cause for annulment, half the marriages in the US could be annulled in the first year.

Russ 2000 | June 5, 2008, 5:34pm | #

The court specifically stated that while virginity might not be an essential element of all marriages, it was acknowledged to be an essential element of this marriage.

And the argument is that the court doesn't have the authority to decide what essential elements of marriages are on a case-by-case basis.

Nick M. | June 5, 2008, 5:44pm | #

I'm trying to figure out what makes an annulment so "extraordinary." At least in Indiana, you can get your marriage annuled simply because you haven't been married long enough to acquire joint possessions. At least that is why my cousin got an annulment instead of a divorce after 3 months. I'm going to assume that this guy decided he didn't want to be married to the woman after about 30 minutes. So what possible reason could there be for a divorce?

Russ 2000 | June 5, 2008, 5:48pm | #

Pro Liberate,

If lying about her virginity fraudulently induced him to marry her, it would seem to be reasonable grounds for annulment.

You're leaving out the legal definition of fraud. Look up the wiki on "fraud" and you get:

"fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them... Marriage Fraud can take several forms and is the act of entering a marriage for personal gain rather than a genuine desire to enter into a sincere marital relationship. Marriage Fraud is usually associated with obtaining immigration benefits."

(immigration benefits essentially being a fraud against the government.)

Urkobold™ | June 5, 2008, 5:50pm | #

NICK M., YOU FOOL AND POOR EXCUSE FOR A CONTINUITY DIRECTOR, ANNULMENT IS NO MINOR DECISION FOR THE COURTS! ONCE THEY HAVE DECIDED TO ANNUL A MARRIAGE, ALL OF THE GIFTS MUST BE RETURNED, THE INVITATIONS DESTROYED, AND ALL GUESTS WHO ATTENDED THE CEREMONY MUST BE ELIMINATED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. THE KEY TERM TO ANNULMENT IS "NULL." IT NEVER HAPPENED, AND NO ONE CAN BE ALLOWED TO LIVE WHO CAN SAY OTHERWISE. THIS GOES FOR THE JUDGES AS WELL.

Ben | June 5, 2008, 5:58pm | #

I can't believe there's so much disagreement about this on a libertarian site. Its a basic contract issue, I don't see how anyone who calls themselves a libertarian could find anything wrong with this situation.

Russ 2000 | June 5, 2008, 6:02pm | #

At least in Indiana, you can get your marriage annuled simply because you haven't been married long enough to acquire joint possessions.

If both parties agree to an annulment, the court should probably forego the whole issue of "essential elements". Since the court didn't I'm assuming it's not as cut-and-dried an annulment request as people want to believe. Either way, the court made a mountain out of a molehill (at the request of one party or on its own whim) and the court setting new precedents is important.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2008, 6:02pm | #

There's criminal fraud, then there's fraud in the inducement. Here's a definition of that tort in Florida (just for example):

Fraud in the inducement requires proof of:
(1) a false statement of material fact;
(2) that the defendant knew or should have known was false;
(3) that was made to induce the plaintiff to enter into a contract; and
(4) that proximately caused injury to the plaintiff when acting in reliance on the misrepresentation.

The fourth prong is all that is at issue here, and I think he suffered adequate injury to seek relief. Obviously, we're only using the fraud angle as a basis for granting an annulment, not for actually seeking damages against the woman for fraud. I'd say that would be a little more difficult to prove. Plus, family law is a different animal. . .which is the crux of the problem, anyway.

liberty mike | June 5, 2008, 6:04pm | #

D A Ridgley-

The term "retired Catholic" has been around a while. I have used it for years, as far back as the late 80s. I forget where I first heard or read it, but, like you, I took an immediate liking to it. Incidentally, while the line did(and still does) technically apply to me, I must confess that I often used it with an ulterior motive: charming a gal blessed with both pulchritude and an anti-papist philosophy.

The Wine Commonsewer | June 5, 2008, 6:10pm | #

Please don't play dumb.

Oh bite me Tom, you need a drink. :-)

Russ 2000 | June 5, 2008, 6:13pm | #

and I think he suffered adequate injury to seek relief

And I'm trying very hard to figure out just what injury he suffered. What injury are you seeing that I'm not? Loss of self-esteem?

JB | June 5, 2008, 6:20pm | #

It's France. When it comes to politics, they are retarded. They should stick to wine and cheese and let other countries run their political system.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2008, 6:43pm | #

Russ 2000,

Well, if we were talking dollar damages, I'd agree. But if we're just talking equitable relief--namely, an annulment--it seems reasonable enough to me. He was (arguably) harmed by money he spent on the ceremony, the lost time and opportunity to seek a wife who met his standards, etc.

I'm not sure what the big deal is in this instance, to be honest. Where this could be a bigger issue is when it's done to avoid the property division and other implications of a divorce. But that's only a serious concern when there's been time for marital assets to accrue (time is relevant even in community property states, I think, though someone who knows more should correct me if I'm wrong).

technomist | June 5, 2008, 6:55pm | #

Those here saying she should not have been allowed a mutually agreeable annulment but instead should have been forced to either wait for her husband to sue for divorce or sue for divorce herself miss the essential justice of the court's ruling.

By granting her an annulment, the woman here is free to marry again immediately. She can do this without the very real and possibly greater handicap that being a divorcee could have when compared to being able to seek a husband while never having legally been married.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2008, 7:05pm | #

She could marry the guy who devirgined her. That would offer a symmetrical dénouement to this national crisis, L'Affaire Hymen, if you will.

Terry | June 5, 2008, 7:40pm | #

If she wasn't a virgin, the why did the stupid girl marry a stupid religious freak that gets all stupid over virginity?

Mr. Nice Guy | June 5, 2008, 8:09pm | #

France is mad because a growing and significant share of their population has ideas about life, society, culture, politics, religion, etc., that seem horribly, horribly wrong to them. And they are worried that as this group becomes larger they may impose said ideas on them (that is kinda what humans do). Are they crazy? If France became 50% Muslim immigrants 2morrow it would cease to be France, wouldn't it? I happen to like French culture (and British, and Russian, etc). I'm not a fan of "Muslo-Franco" culture. And shit, it's note even MY culture! So I don't blame these people for being upset...Good for them, though maybe too late...

Mr. Nice Guy | June 5, 2008, 8:15pm | #

And, Western civ has evolved to a point where most people don't take kindly to marriage being reduced to the terms of an economic contract. I've often said many libertarians would be better named "contractarians" or "responsibiltarians" and it is this kind of thing that makes many people agree with me I should think...

Fluffy | June 5, 2008, 8:45pm | #

And, Western civ has evolved to a point where most people don't take kindly to marriage being reduced to the terms of an economic contract.

OK, fine - but the feminists most angry about this ruling are thinking, "Bu-Bu-But in annulments the wife can't take half the husband's money!"

If it weren't for the economic contract implications no one would give a shit about this either way.

Even John, who seems the most agitated person here about it, would have no problem if these people were divorced. John doesn't want this guy to just get an annulment, because if he has to get a divorce presumably it will cost him money and that will make him suffer enough for his "barbaric" preferences to make John happy.

"It's not about the money," almost always means the opposite of what it says.

kinnath | June 5, 2008, 9:17pm | #

By granting her an annulment, the woman here is free to marry again immediately.

BINGO

John is pissed because she is losing her "rights" as a divorcee. All the while ignoring any benefits she may derive from never having been married.

T | June 5, 2008, 9:37pm | #

What remedy do people who are outraged by this decision want? Should the courts have forced them to stay married?

(Standard Libertarian Disclaimer: Obviously you shouldn't need a state license to get married and if they didn't exist this never would have happened.)

Mr. Nice Guy | June 5, 2008, 9:41pm | #

fluffy-I don't agree with many ultra-feminists (normal feminism I would say is just common sense and I of course agree with) but I think their beef is that the woman should be judged "inadequate" based on her sexual actions (was the man held to that standard?).

Mr. NIce Guy | June 5, 2008, 9:49pm | #

Here's the crux-if you live in a culture where such a determination would harm you, but not a gender opposite, then what? OK, there is no governmnet "coercion" but there is the remaining effects of past government coercion, culturally...And it matters...

Mad Max | June 5, 2008, 10:52pm | #

"As for the secularist imperative, which in France is strong enough to override the free exercise of religion, I do not understand how it can co-exist with legal principles that empower aggrieved religious groups to punish people for speech that offends them."

I don't think this is a contradiction. The secularist project is based on the idea that the goals of the state - defined without reference to traditional religion - should predominate in the public sphere, but this does not preclude religious believers practicing their religion in private, with people of all religions uniting in harmony to promote the higher goals of the state.

Essential to this project is the idea that religious differences need to be minimized or ignored. Some weirdo who goes around criticizing the tenets of a particular religion will turn debate in the public square onto religious topics, where there are urgent *secular* matters to be debated, like increasing the subsidy for Provencal beet farmers.

Mad Max | June 5, 2008, 10:54pm | #

Alternate explanation - the laws of most countries (particularly including France) are not internally consistent.

Robert | June 6, 2008, 12:13am | #

As for the secularist imperative, which in France is strong enough to override the free exercise of religion, I do not understand how it can co-exist with legal principles that empower aggrieved religious groups to punish people for speech that offends them. How can the same country that fears Muslims are taking over when they insist on wearing headscarves or marrying virgins prosecute a novelist for contempt of Islam?

It's because the country whose slogan calls for liberty, equality, and fraternity hazing exalts the equality and fraternity hazing above the liberty. They subsidize religious schools, but if people in the "public" schools (which are supp