Chastity Fraud: Marriage Annulled Over Virginity Lie
 

I find it interesting that the court didn't hear any evidence about religion during the litigation, but the whole idea and precedence this creates by the way that I read it is that it creates a situation for women to be chattel. A possession or object instead of a person.

Reading the above, just makes me shiver. I cannot believe that someone would be able to find something like this acceptable. Could someone divorce because of being sterile? having cancer? getting fat?

They aren't legal grounds for divorce, but they have been reasons.

Why are the courts even bothering with this? Fraud in and of itself is a valid reason for annulment(re: Rene Zellweger, c. 2006). If she, whether Muslim or not, reprsented herself to be something it was found later she was not, and that issue was a deal maker or breaker, it's not even newsworthy. Why it's made so is the fact that the fraud charge involved her sexual past-she presented herself as a virgin. She lied, big whoop.
Rights groups have a real problem with cultural mentality. Granted, there are some things they should stick their nose in-genital mutilation in some African tribal cultures comes to mind-but this is not the mutilation, imprisonment or torture of another. She lied.
Dati needs to find something else to occupy his time and the human rights mouthpieces need to as well. If it goes back to court, they'll be pissed off; if the marriage gets annulled, they'll be pissed off. There are more pressing issues.

The fact that this particular annulment pertains to women's sexuality should be immaterial. But it won't be. People simply aren't willing to be reasonable in cases like this and insist on weighing in their useless and meaningless opinions. Me? All I can say is that she's not a whore, she's a human being and deserves to be treated as such, however marriage is an agreement which is not unlike a contract. If you misrepresent yourself in the contract said contract could be void.

While the state can marry anyone the state wants, regardless of sexual history, the religion creates a definite contractual context. It's that context and how it applies to law that's in question.

I you're a member of a religion in which one can only become married after drinking 4 gallons of milk in a week, and one of the parties lies about drinking the milk, the same question of religious context pertaining to the law could be in question.

BTW, does she really want to be married to a ponce like this?

I really don't see anything wrong with the decision of the court to annul the marriage. One must remember that marriage is a contract, and that if one is made to believe by the other something that is untrue, false, or hide something from the other that could affect his or her decision to go ahead with the contract, then it has to be annul. In Guatemala, one can ask for a marriage annulment if either wife or husband hide reproductive problems to the other, and I think that is fair. I might be a douche that wants my wife to be virgin and able to breed, and that plays a big role in taking my decision to marry her, if she lies to me, I was led to believe something untrue and so, my decision was taken over false expectations.

agreed.

She represented herself as something that she later admitted was untrue.

The fact that is was her sexual history is not relevant (to me) - if she'd lied about her income, or he'd lied about his level of education, it would still be fraud, and certainly under English legal history I'm sure this would have been covered as "breach of promise".

No, she didn't, hence why she was happy with the original ruling; the article states that she is disappointed that the controversy surrounding the decision because she wants her marriage to be over.

I don't see this as an issue directly related to Islam; I'm sure that in France there are many remaining vestiges of the Catholic Church's influence on French law and thought that also came out in this ruling. Personally, I don't like the idea of women as chattel, and I regret the effects a ruling such as this may cause--is it worth the cost of freeing a single woman from a bad marriage? I don't know; I suppose we'll find out.

Fraud is fraud, and is and always ought to be good reason for annulling a contract. Chastity may not be a material term to you or me, but it is to some people, and if someone enters into that contract with them based on that fraudulent claim, I think there's every reason to consider that grounds for mutual rescission.

The case is easily mischaracterized as having something to do with oppressing women. Like those above, I don't think that's the issue in the slightest.

Sounds like someone I'd like. I hope this dies down soon so she can get on with living her life.

Why do you say this? Do you mean sexuality or gender? If gender, I dont believe it is immaterial. In fact, I believe it is rooted in her being a woman. Fraud may be distasteful, but this sets a scary precedent for women.


Putting religious laws above secular?! Please. Another dangerous precedent.

If a person, male or female, lies about their sexual history, and the sexual history has serious religious implications, then the other party should be given the opportunity to annul. It's about false pretenses, not a woman's right to have sex before marriage.

Can a woman sue a man for the same lie, and win? Is that allowed? And if there are children involved? Does the woman leave her life and raise them hoping for child support? How will it be enforced? Or if it is a drunken marriage?

There are still women who are stoned to death for indiscretions in this world. When was the last time you heard of a man being stoned to death because of a decision he made to use his body, but didnt want to tell anyone out of fear.

If I am found by a priest to have mortally sinned and I refuse to repent, and he tells my husband then am I subject to divorce? What if on the first date I lie about something having to do only with me and nothing with you, that happened long before I met you, and is really none of your business, and 8 years later you learn I lied. Am I then a target? And who decides this, whose whim at whatever time?

Please. I am indignant.

I mean really, please. It appears to be in re false pretenses, but the religious law is not. It is specifically about women.

This woman isn't being stoned to death. She even wants the annulment.

Yes. However, it sets a precedent both for men/women and for religious/secular forums. I mean really dont you think its messy and dangerous ground to tread, not to mention unfair?

I understand that the woman doesnt want to be used as an example, and I sympathize with her. I am no fan of unwanted attention, and I would probably hide out and not speak at all to the press. However, I thought this posting was about the subject rather than only the piece itself.

This won't be expanded to stoning. It's an annulment based on false pretenses. Plenty of women around the world have marriages annulled because their husbands lied about something major before they got married.

>>This won't be expanded to stoning.<< It just has.

. . .

Its the idea. You do understand dont you about the precedent, and based on historical recollection how it may make women feel as if owned? Surely you get that.

Sorry to be so gurgley. I havent eaten dinner and had only Junior Mints for lunch. Nonetheless, even after the full meal waiting for me I will wonder how you can posture this way.

The precedent this sets is that if you enter into married under fraudulent terms, it is grounds for annulment. It is a broad reading of fraud which allows more marriages to be annulled for more reasons, including very personal reasons like religious preference-which I personally value as a protection of free exercise. To be honest, I think anything else you attribute to it is your own personal bias and has nothing to do with the actual impact of the decision.

Who was stoning? Who was stoned?
Precedent for this is people lying before getting married. It just happens to be a Muslim couple. Christians, Jews, and Hindus could have just as easily done this. Shoot, atheists could have.

If I met a wonderful woman, fell in love and found out she used to be a man, I'd get a big fat annulment. Not because I'm against people doing what makes them happy, but because he/she lied to me.
I'll come over and cook you dinner. :thumbsup:

How about we just allow them to divorce or annul because they want it, and let the religious and misogynistic overtones stay out of court rulings? Yeah, she lied. What if he lied about having a million dollars? Or that he was going to be a "modern husband"?

I dislike making presumption of virginity an even implied part of the marriage contract.

How about we all get our collective panties out of a wad because this is happening in France and doesn't mean shit in the US, Canada, UK or Australia? It doesn't set any precedent except in France. This is an annullment for fraud which - to the astonishment of some of you - is a perfectly acceptable reason in all 50 states of the US. It's the details of the fraud that has everyone all fired up here. What if she'd been a he and misrepresented that? Where's your righteous indignation then?

Personally, I feel sorry for the woman. This has got to be her worst case scenario. She didn't want any of this.

Christ, talk about tempest in a teapot (except in France where it actually means something).

Collective panties?! Relax, its just a discussion. I dont think it was ever implied in discussion where this set a precendent. In my own mind I wasnt thinking of a geographical place so much as thought patterns that persists in re women in the world in general. You know, I am a woman. These things are important to me. And the secular vs religious law thingy has always been a stone in my shoe. I mean I have to drag out my soap box occasionally. I read the original post as not so much about the case itself, more a question posed about the example this sets.

And, 007 offered dinner so it cant be all bad.

How did he/she lie to you? Did you ASK them directly that they were a woman? Is that an actual question you've posed to your girlfriend?

"Hey, were you born a girl?"
"I just wanted to ask if you were born a man and switched to being a girl. So were you born a man?"

If they ommited that fact by never mentioning it how is it a lie to you? As far as she is concerned she is now a woman and will continue to be one for the future. Now I could see if she was reverting back to being a man as a dealbreaker, but if she continued being a woman, how is that a lie?

In the same vein could one be a recovered alcoholic/drug addict and that be grounds? It's their past right? That's what is important right?

Or is the most important thing the very much future that the two people have and how they will create that future?

If I'm dating a woman seriously, I've already brought up the fact that I want to have children, biological offspring. That's when the question is asked. If she's not interested in giving birth sometime in the future, that's a deal-breaker. A man with surgery cannot give birth.

So yes, I ask.

that's fair. so if they are later to be found to be sterile you'd divorce them.

If she knew she was sterile and I married her with the intent to reproduce? File that under "cry me a river". And no, I'd probable shoot for an annulment (depending on my lawyer's advice).

I don't lie to women I'm dating and I expect the same from them.

secondary question to everyone.... what is the difference between annulled and divorced? IMO it's is the same.

"Have you ever been divorced?"
"No, I haven't."

I've got to side with willravel on this one. I really don't see how the virginity or lack thereof is relevant. As shocking as it is, there are some cultures that still place an emphasis on such things. It was her choice to represent herself as something she isn't and this is the result of that. It sounds like everyone is more or less getting what they want out of it. Why does it have to be turned into some sort of feministic thing?

As far as I can see, there is absolutely no gender issues here. The guy is religiously opposed to marrying a woman who isn't a virgin, which is cool. I mean, sure it's a bit backwards and anachronistic, but it's his choice. I'm against marrying a woman over 40. The sole reason it's an issue is because she lied about it. Therefore he entered into a contract under false pretenses and she has committed fraud. Where does she become the victim?

For legal and religious reasons an annulment may be more desirable in some situations. Also, an annulment means no alimony or other costly and time consuming divorce proceedings. It's the marriage's undo button.

im on the same wavelength as will here and was going to use the same example.

if i was married and found out that my wife was a man. it'd be goodbye charlie! its the principle of truth. and im not talking about small lies here.

im not so sure about the reigious background of the woman or her husband, but if he got married to her thinking she was a virgin and she gave him that impression, coupled with the sigma of not being a virgin at marriage in the muslim world, then he/she has a right to annul the marriage. it matters not who annuls. in islamic law, there is no differentiation in this case. any party can annul.

but this isnt really about religion than about frances opportunity to run rifts and divides within the fragile peace between the islamic community and the rest of france.

This is it in a nutshell. This marriage was based on a lie. So it should be annulled.

Either way it goes she lied, and she didn't want to be in the marriage anyway. I don't see the problem with the annulment. The fact that she lied should be reason enough for the annulment. If my wife asked me a question that really meant something to her, something soo important that us getting married hinged on the answer, and I lied to her....Would I expect her to stay married, no. No matter what the question pertained to, the fact that I lied should count and I should be expected to accept the consequences for the lie.

Willravel: Your case of sterility used as an example seems understandable and certainly reasonable to me, if a little off subject. I understand it represents a spouse lying to another spouse about something of great import. However, in your case the sterility affects you presently. How do a partner's premarital indiscretions affect your life given that they were done discreetly and with no bad outcome, such as disease or something?

Dlish: Do you know what the expectations for men coming to the marital bed are? Virginity for both? I dont know, but I hope its fair and true on both sides. Interesting note of yours re France's muslim population and their tenuous peace. Im going to read more about it.

Why should that be the slightest bit relevant?

Judging by the material available, there's more to this than meets the eye. Regardless, it's not like he sprung this on her. Odds are it was mentioned at some point and the whole not having sex before marriage bit would seem to be a strong indicator. If we assume for the sake of argument that all parties entered into this arrangement willingly, then the sole issue here is that she defrauded him. His status, expectations of him, none of that matters in the slightest bit.

Every couple and every individual needs to decide for themselves what's right. This guy thinks his wife ought to be unsullied and that's his call. Personally, I'd much rather the girls I sleep with not be virgins, because that's a whole big mess (literally and figuratively) that I'd just rather avoid. He may have a double standard for his wife-to-be and that's fine too. If he can find a woman who agrees with it, then good on him. Shockingly, they do still exist.

GD - its the same as christianity. pre-marital sex for either party is forbidden. so yes that means virginity for both. period.

whether you can prove virginity on a guy is a different story.

Agreed. As I understand it, both parties want the annulment anyway.

well, now you can just get a surgery peformed and continue to lie about your premartial sex status.

Yak! no!
Difference in income or education would NEVER be grounds for annulment of marriage, sheesh!

---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------

False!
What happens in one "Western Civilized" country impacts all countries in the era of globalization, or hadn't you heard of this. Many years ago in France Muslim women started getting hymenal fabrication down by doctors in order to fake their virginity (with AND without consent of prospective husbands).

Now this ridiculous surgery has become mainstream on this side of the ocean and is even covered by medical insurance in some places.

This is a global world, what happens to one happens to all.

Sure it could be. Middle class person lies and says they're wealthy during their relationship with another wealthy person. Thinking they're in love, and that there is no money motivation since the other person says they're wealthy, the actually wealthy person does not demand a prenuptial agreement. They get married, "whoops! I lied, I'm actually not rich at all." Down the line they get divorced and the middle class person gets a good chunk of the money.

More importantly, it's just plain misrepresenting yourself. If you marry someone thinking they are one thing and it turns out they were lying and they are actually another, then that is most certainly reason for an annulment.

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------

The problem here is the value the husbands place on virginity, so much so that their prospective spouse would rather deceive them than tell the truth.

really? then that would mean that religious freedoms would be happening to everyone.

or is it just the negative things that happen?

... it's 2009 and we're still worried about being the first to bust a hymen in the name of the almighty.

Somebody drop the bomb already.

Your "could be" plot is not about annulment but divorce, and of course ANYBODY can get divorced over whatever grounds, but in divorce proceedings one must demonstrate irreconcilable differences and generally over multiple grounds "recognized" by society. France (and this side of the ocean) don't have virginity as a cultural essential!

Annulment is an entirely different legal situation and is generally even more difficult to be granted.

My hypothetical is under the premise that annulment is not an option, which is what you're asserting. The point being that annulment should be an option if the wealthy person discovers the other person lied about their financial status. In the example I gave, the wealthy person would lose a decent chunk of money because he was not able to annul the marriage due to the other person's fraud.

If a man marries a woman who is not a virgin and he knows that she is not, or didn't bother to ask, then that's no justification for an annulment. If someone misrepresents themself to their spouse in order to secure the marriage, and is then caught, that should most certainly be grounds for annulment.

"everyone", nothing ever happens to "everyone", there are no such thing as absolutes in life, only statistics, and trends. Do you not live on the same planet as me, are you not aware that atheism is on the rise in most places on the planet, but more specifically in the Western world. Religious freedom is an oxymoron, religion is never freedom. The countries where religiosity is on the increase are countries in despair, peoples with so little hope and access to knowledge that they're willing to place hope on any ridiculous idea.

Where do you think the show Big Brother and most other Reality TV shows are based, in France and Europe, entire North American civilization is a result or earlier "globalization". Wine is from France, the English language is a result of the mixing of French and Latin with Germanic languages. Modern democracy is from France, modern human rights are from France.

We do not live in little solitary little bubbles, any decent human being will work for the happiness of our fellow humans, which means getting our hands dirty and fighting humans who only have hatred and greed/control ruling their lives.

France has always been a country with an impact on the world scene, as are the USA, and England, China and India, and a few others, for better and for worse, globalization is with us, it is up to us to determine how we let it impact our lives

I would say that relationships with the first person you have been with are a little more stable than being partner #52.

Maybe it is different if both partners have had 50 other people before, but I don't know.

Actually...
It's the opposite, according to statistics published by religious organizations in the past decade, divorce is highest amongst those married youngest and with the least experience.

The crux of the matter is that in this modern world there is temptation everywhere, and it can't be hidden, so someone with little experience will always wonder if they made a mistake and whether the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Someone with experience as seen things, and when they finally decide to marry, it's with a full understanding of the "singles life" they leave behind.

Chastity is for nuns! Protected sex is good thing, and more of it is even better.
:thumbsup:

yeah, that's good correlation to explain the causation. :shakehead: