Actually, however Neandterthalic the attitude about virginity, the legal analysis seems quite clear: misrepresentation re fundamental fact of background.

She represented herself as a virgin, the husband in 1868 as a man with a clean past. Material misrepresentations. Same kind of misrepresentation can get any contract voided.

The previous comment is correct. Here in the USA you can get an annulment if you misrepresented yourself before the marriage.

This has nothing to do with Islam, it is actually about protecting people who get married. In this case it is about relationships, but annulments have been given for a wide range of issues.

If you marry someone who lied to you to try and get you to marry them, you should have recourse to end the marriage.

The act of lying, itself, is an attack against the most basic essential of a marriage, trust.

I cannot speak for the guy in question, but it may very well be that it wasnt the previous relationship that was the issue. The issue is that the woman lied and proved herself to be untrustworthy before the marriage even began.

I understand the point about misrepresentation very well, and if it wasn't for the issue of virginity in Neanderthalic segments of Muslims societies, I'd be all for that judgment, however trivial the underlying fact.

Now, judges also have the option to chose an interpretation that is more adequate to circumstances, and convey more than the simple legalese that was applied. How wise was it to interpret a lie about virginity as a misrepresentation? I mean, there are degrees even in misrepresentation. After all, it could be about a girl being a fake blonde...

"How wise was it to interpret a lie about virginity as a misrepresentation?"

Totally wise, it WAS a misrepresentation.

" I mean, there are degrees even in misrepresentation. After all, it could be about a girl being a fake blonde..."

That would be a misrepresentation.

There is no "it isn't a misrepresentation because it reinforces a barbaric system that reinforces astereotype" exception to misrepresentation.

Hair color can be restored to its original state quite easily. Virginity or criminal history, not so much.

Do I detest gender-based double standards on virginity? Hell yeah. Can I imagine committing to someone for a lifetime without a clue re: our physical compatibility? No way.

Do I find it morally acceptable, even in cases of double standard, to lie? To one's future spouse? Sorry, but the answer is still no.

I'm not saying it isn't misrepresentation. I'm saying judges are not stupid computer bots.

IANAL, but if memory serves, there's a case in French jurisprudence where someone stealing out of hunger wasn't punished for it, even as the law was clear about theft (it WAS theft, just like it IS misrepresentation in this case). IOW, judges are supposed to use their judgement in applying the law - which is why we still use human judges as opposed to textmining programs.

Item plus, the law's letter doesn't speak of misrepresentation (though that's what the legal analysis is about indeed). It speaks of "essential quality". That, and French jurisprudence is not binding. Which would have given the judge enough room for (re)interpretation.

I don't know squat about French jurisprudence, but couldn't one make the interpretation that truthfulness is an essential quality, even if virginity isn't? I'd be pissed off if I asked my future spouse a question, point-blank, about a signficant relationship in his past and he lied to me about it, whether or not it had anything to do with virginity. I've dumped people in the past for lying to me, for sure.

Would I end a marriage over it? Who knows, but don't know that I'd blame someone else for ending a marriage for catching his/her spouse in a lie over something that was, by mutual agreement, significant to both of them.

From my crappy French plus google translation, it sounds like the woman in this case was not contesting the annulment. Which kind of disposes me to think that it's not really much of anyone else's business.

Yeah, especially if, as I undrstand, civil marriage is the only type of marriage in France with any legal significance. Or would it be better to have two people who no longer want to be married to each other remain married to each other, just so some judge can refrain from making any ruling that might be construed as having anything to do with Islam or social conservatism?

Eve, what I dislike about this judgement is not related to the morality of the facts. Heck, for whatever it's worth, I'm against marriage as a legal institution, so a fortiori, I'm all for people being able to dissolve it without justification just when they feel like it. It's about the social and political irresponsibility of such a decision given the underlying (stated) motives and the circumstances.

So Shaheen, you'd feel differently if the woman had lied about having a criminal record? Or lied about her net worth? Or anything that isn't specifically a gender issue?

Yes. It would have had no consequence beyond the couple.

Would you have felt the same way if the couple in question were Orthodox Jews, or conservative Christians, or from any other tradition that places high importance on female virginity?

I dont read French well, but the post itself doesnt indicate that virginity was the major issue here. As the guy was a convert himself, chances are he isnt a virgin himself.

Just because the woman had a boyfriend doesnt mean she isnt a virgin. There are many women and men who have had relationships and are still virgins.

The state should protect those who are married from people who have lied and otherwise deceived their partners.

What if one spouse had a STD or AIDS and lied and deceived their partner about it? Would that matter then, after all "It would have no consequence beyond the couple" right?

Male or female have a right to expect not to be mislead, lied to, or deceived into a marriage. I know this might be misused in certain areas of the world but the truth, in my opinion, should win out.

This isnt about virginity, although some may obsess over that issue. It is about the ability of people to expect the truth and to marry someone without fear of having all sorts of issues pop up afterwards that were not seen.

If a woman or a man is lied to and deceived should they still have to divorce and go through everything that comes with such an event?

No way. If someone uses deceit, even fraud, to marry someone, the state should protect the victim.

From a convert aspect, many converts male and female alike, are taken advantage of by those who pray on their ignorance. Immigration scams are a big issue for new converts looking to get married and people from outside the West will often prey on new converts to use them to come to the West only to drop them a few weeks after residence is granted.

I have seen it happen myself. Again, I dont know the details in this case, but this could be the case. I have seen it happen here in the USA. Male/female convert wants to get married, gets set up with someone overseas and they come only for the green card.

Nice to see some good, Aqoul-style bickering. Just like old times. There's life in the place yet!

I believe the question of what constitutes an "essential quality" is left up to the people involved, not the court or progressive societal norms. I don't think gays should be discriminated against. Having said that, I'm totally sympathetic to someone seeking an annulment because their partner confessed to being gay right after they got married.

If something is a deal-breaker for one of the parties, it's an "essential quality." It's not (or shouldn't be) up to a court to ignore that party's requirements, no matter how objectively silly. If I'm only willing to marry someone who, say, has never been to France -- and I'm clear about that requirment in advance -- that's an "essential quality" for me.

The exact same analysis applies in commercial contract law (in most jurisdictions, anyway.) If the contract specifies that something is a material term, then violating that term will breach the contract. It sounds like a similar thing was going on here. In sum, this isn't a gender/religious issue and from what limited info we have, the judge probably made the correct decision.

Speaking as a (more or less normal) male, lying about one's past sexual history is de riguer, isn't it?
I mean honestly, if every woman who was lied to by her man on matters of past sexual history insisted on divorce, would anyone still be married?
And vice versa. At least on this side of the Atlantic.
Anyone expecting to get the full truth on stuff like this is being extremely silly.
Now, if you lie about having a child by a previous relationship, or contracting an STD that you still had (which would affect the health of the spouse), or being a criminal as in the precedent for this case, well, something that serious would constitute something that I, as a judge, would construe as lying about an essential quality.
But whether or not you had a boyfriend, or how many you had (well, assuming you wouldn't need a stadium to fit them all, or that you wouldn't greet the entire high school football team from your old alma mater as old time bedtime buddies, that is)?
Come on. That's just nutty.

Just as a reality check, I presented this to my wife in a completely abstract way, and her immediate answer was "I wouldn't believe the person."
Simple common sense, really.

This is an important document of some relevance to this discussion.

Hmm, seems to me that a lie is a lie. If there were caveats re how absurd or retarded the conditions for the lie were then it would make a mockery of all contract law.

A material misrepresentation is basically anything you misrepresent that you know, if disclosed correctly, would affect the other's consideration.

There are exceptions to this in American law, in part precisely to avert social error. One cannot for example disclose or take into consideration the race of a purchaser of a house.

Or weirdly enough, you cannot disclose if someone was once murdered in a house when marketing that house as the law (in some states at least) deems it nonmaterial, even though it is a fact that would affect the purchase for many people.

Personally I don't like these exceptions though I agree with their underlying intent. For example, if a woman told her bigoted fiance that she was ancestrally all white (or whatever race of interest)though she knew of a nonwhite (or relevant race) ancestor, then I'd say it was misrepresentation and grounds for annulment. Evil though it be.

The Lounsbury made a correct observation: this case is about misrepresentation, i.e. the wife's lie about being a virgin, a circumstance she knew, by her own admission, was crucial for her husband's willingness to marry her. For those who care to know, the wife acquiesced to the annulment: "Y... demande au tribunal de : lui donner acte de son acquiescement à la demande de nullité formée par X...".

The question discussed by French jurists is whether virginity should be considered as an essential quality in the terms of article 180 of the Code civil. There are two schools of thought: one according to which that notion should be approached in an abstract way (in abstracto) - the judge should then determine whether virginity is considered as an essential quality by the average citizen; the other school of thought would approach the question subjectively (in concreto): was the quality in question essential to the plaintiff, irrespective of whether it could be deemed as essential in the eyes of the average citizen? If so, the marriage should be annulled.

The case-law examined by legal commentators seems to weigh in favor of the latter option, although some lower-court judgments favor the in abstracto-approach. The wiser bet seems to be on the Cour d'appel and eventually the Cour de Cassation upholding the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille's ruling, but allah ou alem...

Btw Shaheen, you should be more careful when discussing the binding force of precedent in French law. While it is not formally stated with the same vigour as by the House of Lords for example, there is no way that a lower-court ruling blatantly flouting the Cour de cassation's line on the interpretation or implementation of a legal provision would be allowed to stand - the aggrieved party's lawyer would make sure to appeal, and any court of appeal would generally be wiser than to expose itself to the Cour de Cassation's censure.

IK, the point was, judges in France are left with a margin of re-interpretation that is much broader than that common law would offer for example as formally, precedents are not binding. But you're absolutely right as soon as you go beyond my oversweeping statement.

Mate,

This is an instance where whether you like it or not, the fundamentals of purely secular law are going to generate results that can appear culturally uncomfortable.

It is trivially easy to find similar instances, less-hot button to be sure, even in Common Law and among Christians.

Fundamental misrepresentation on a crucial issue in the agreement, and which was fundamentally clear at the outset, is a clear grounds to void the contract.

Now, your objections would make sense if post-facto, Husband, who never seriously asked, suddenly decided that virginity was an essential quality. There, if the Court had voided, we would have both a legal and a real moral question. In this instance, no.

Now, we can all agree that the husband was a silly donkey, but no religion nor ethnicity has a monopoly on cretinism.

L., actually Anon's comment convinced me already of the (as per IK's explanation) "in concreto" angle.

Now I'm still slightly annoyed by yet another "Muslims are retards" episode in France, but hey, one more or one less...

Does the article specifically state that she denied a previous relationship or that she denied that she was not a virgin?

They are not the same thing. Just because she lied about having a previous boyfriend doesnt mean she isnt a virgin.

I think some people are getting too worked up over the virginity issue when it isnt clear that virginity is the case here.

She finally admitted to a previous relationship that she lied about. That, in itself, is grounds for annulment.

I think the virginity issue has been inserted into this issue to make a mountain out of a molehill.

This has nothing to do with virginity, it is all about the trustworthy nature of a person you intend to spend the rest of your life with.

If they lied before the marriage, it is pretty clear they will lie after the marriage.

The case is indeed a very tricky one of secular justice intervening in a case which has obvious religious repercussions. First, there is no discussion on the fact that the initial judgment was asked by both the man and the woman and that the woman is now very worried about the appeal (which might make her married again with someone she does not want). Second (as stated in this article: http://www.lesechos.fr/info/analyses/4735134.htm) the judgment is based on the idea that virginity (or a previous relationship) is an essential quality of the married person. Quality is here to take in its neutral meaning in French, not any positive connotation. It just means something that qualifies (like a color or a texture). Unfortunately, this aspect of the judgment is clearly anti constitutional: virginity can't be clearly established for a man, which means that using this criteria as an essential quality of a person would be gravely discriminatory for women.

I disagree on the third point in the article above. I don't think that one can argue that it is a breach of secularism. It could have been if the request had not been made by both the wife and her husband.

This said, I think a proper request in French law would have been to ask not for annulation but for divorce. If both had asked for it just like they asked for annulation, it would have been easily granted and had not violated the French Constitution.

a proper request in French law would have been to ask not for annulation but for divorce.

Yes, can someone here provide insight into the potential ramifications of divorce vs. annulment, if both secular and religious law provide for either option in this case? Why didn't they just take the path of least resistance?

a proper request in French law would have been to ask not for annulation but for divorce.

Yes, can someone here provide insight into the potential ramifications of divorce vs. annulment, if both secular and religious law provide for either option in this case? Why didn't they just take the path of least resistance?

With all do respect to Alphast, I believe the legal analysis can not be characterised as "quality" or aspect of the person, but the characterisation at the time of marriage. As Ibn Kafka already pointed out, this sort of issue in contract law is quite standard. The question not being essential quality of "women" but an essential quality (as represented) of of a party in the contract between two individuals, freely entered into and agreed on in advance. Your analysis as "gravely discriminatory" towards women is wrong.

Marriage is always about personal preference, and to the degree those preferences have to be reasonably compatible; fundamental misrepresentation is of course a problem. If one makes this an analysis at the level of the society, one opens the door for serious problems impacting marriage law that while this instance superficially seems to advance women's rights (superficially and incorrectly), can more likely have a negative impact on general liberties with results like the Egyptian idiocy of forcing a divorce for asserted social apostasy.

This should be ultimately a no brainer.

a -- Important to the relationship (as determined by the arbitrary and even outrageous preferences and values of the party)
b -- misrepresented
c -- void ab initio

Fascinating stuff. Why is the Muslim minority's poor image partly self inflicted "in this case"?

Maha,
An opportunity was provided to receive more beating. And that happens a LOT in France.
One Muslim is not the whole Muslim minority, yada yada, yada... but that’s irrelevant, speaking strictly in terms of results, we all face life situations where we get our share of beating for something done by another person whose community we are associated with.
If you think you owe it to yourself not to ever undergo that, then, very few exceptions notwithstanding, each of us, individuals, are collectively responsible for not contributing to the minimum critical mass of the kind of organized effort (not even in a self-serving “free market” style) that would ensure it doesn’t happen. In fact, the very opposite seems to happen. Vocal organizations like NPNS actually reinforce the stereotyping a la “Muslim reformist” style (see Aqoul archives if you don’t know this pet topic). At the other end of the spectrum, knee jerk, defensive reactions, will try to justify behaviors from which we should clearly disassociate, and which we should on the contrary make more costly for the members of this community.
If you think this is impractical theory, compare French Muslims to other minorities.

Wow, looks like the New York Times is checking in on the subject.

apparently, the young man was so offended (presumably by the lack of a hymen or bleeding as such) that he left the bedroom and declared it to the wedding guests - offensive, idiotic behaviour - and I can see how the offense and the shame which the young woman involved must have received would have made her want to end the marriage as well.

from NYT article:
The groom, an unidentified engineer in his 30s, left the nuptial bed and announced to the still partying wedding guests that his bride had lied. She was delivered that night to her parents’ doorstep.

The next day, he approached a lawyer about annulling the marriage. The bride, then a nursing student in her 20s, confessed and agreed to an annulment.

Despite my own sadness at his ignorant and arrogant behavior, the legal arguments above make sense: if she and he both agreed on virginity as important to their marriage (her not having any previous relationships), then it becomes an "essential quality" to them. In this case, I think the guy really destroyed the marriage, but she did deny having previous relationships, emotional or sexual. I myself could see objecting to marrying someone who maintained an emotional (and thus potentially sexual) relationship with a previous partner.

Basically, the male partner's behavior may be wrong, but he may still have reason to object - and given the free nature of the marriage contract for both partners to enter stipulations and agreements (which may, theoretically at least, be as much in her interest as much as his) - there is reason to allow the divorce. Especially as he seems to be a bit of a dick.

Out of curiosity, in what other cultures do vestiges of the deflowering ritual still appear in wedding ceremonies? I'm thinking of a friend of mine who married a Hungarian woman in her hometown about 10 years ago; they didn't dangle a bloody sheet at the reception (and as they had lived together for years before marriage, nobody had any pretentions or cared), but they did leave the reception briefly, and then she returned wearing a red dress.

And yes, the guy seems like more than a bit of a dick - IMNSHO she's better off without him.

P.S. Does NOBODY acknowledge the possibility of hymen breakage with no sex involved?

Eva,
The bloody sheet act is something AFAIK, that only happens marginally in the most backward, rural and lower strata of societies of MENA. In some regions, it disappeared altogether for at least a couple of generations.

Doesn't mean the sexual revolution happened yet though. Hymenoplasty is indeed a common phenomenon, ironically more so even in the more "liberal" regions.

Eva Luna: of course that's possible - I think it's beyond the perverse imagination of some groom who's dreamed of being "first"; but of course it's possible. In this case, he compelled her - how? - to admit to a previous boyfriend.

Incindentally, a friend offered a good argument for why some guys are obsessed with virginity - if the girl has never even touched another male, she won't know if the guy is a horrible lover or premature or... - having nothing to compare him with. Stupid and vile, especially given that many men run around themselves...

I'd like to ask, as I grew up amongst intensely Roman Catholic folk (Spanish culture, South Asia) - what is it about "macho" culture that allows even the mothers of girls to guard their daughters' chastity with vehemence (& night-guards & German sheperds where necessary) while letting their boys run rampant, "sowing their wild oats..." - here I mean, what 'logic' governs that behavior?

The logic is rooted in our primate behavioural patterns. Unstructured pregnancy in small bands can present serious tensions.

Dawud - boys can't get pregnant. Somehow the possibility of contracting STDs doesn't seem to, erm, rear its ugly head with the same intensity. When parents talk to their sons about sex (assuming they do), how often do they broach the subject of condoms?

For that matter, having experienced Latin culture, my observation is that girls are expected to be more responsible than boys in all sorts of ways, sex aside - helping around the house, taking care of younger children, etc., while boys are only expected to take care of themselves, if that.

P.S. Can the others here who were raised outside Anglo/North American culture please explain to me what the allure is of being a woman's first? I just don't get it, but then that's likely my Midwestern feminist hippie roots showing.

Well, that part's easy, and also in Anglo culture. Men find that promiscuous women are dirtied up, and that a certain sexual joy is found in doing the dirtying up themselves. It's like ruining or destroying something beautiful, which is very arousing. Once that is done, however, women are like used rags. The whore/saint dichotomy is simply a codification of this.

It's all very Darwin to me. Spread your seed while keeping other men at bay. Though the concrete psychology is weird and interesting.