Virginity Under Attack in France

A French groom was well within his rights to divorce a woman who was not a virgin--and the courts agreed!

While the California Supreme Court was busy undermining traditional marriage customs here in the States, over in France of all places a court issued a ruling upholding traditional marriage customs—very traditional marriage customs.

A French judge ruled in favor of a Muslim groom who wanted his marriage annulled because his bride could not produce proof of her virginity on their wedding night. The bride for her part admitted that she had flat-out lied to the groom by telling him that she was in fact a virgin. The presiding judge ruled that virginity is an “essential quality” of the marriage relationship, to cite the legal term used in the French civil code. Seem like the end of the story? Well, it isn’t.

Women’s rights groups in France are outraged at this ruling, and prime minister Francois Fillon has promised to do all he can to appeal it. Many French citizens are appalled, shocked that their laws allow for a marriage to be annulled if the bride is not a virgin. All this outrage comes—we repeat—despite the insistence of the young woman that she was in the wrong to lie to the man and she will accept the annulment!

Apparently, much of the criticism of this ruling stems from the fact that the case was treated as a breach of contract, and this is thought to reflect a view of a woman as property, as a purchased good that can be brought back to the “vendor” if an imperfection is discovered.

Other women’s groups objected to the ruling because they think it reinforces cultures that attach shame to women who lose their virginity before marriage. How horrible. Some fear it will send many women off to get surgery, known as a hymenoplasty, which seeks to restore a woman’s anatomy to her pre-intercourse state. But if these groups want to change a law, perhaps they should spend their energies banning such gruesome medical procedures in their country. For the man is absolutely well within his rights to petition the court as he did, have the marriage annulled, and to send his deceitful and unchaste bride back to her father.

The couple is of Arab heritage, and Muslim encroachment on secular French culture is a hot-button issue in France. But this case actually has nothing to do with Islam. These laws of the French court have their origins in Christian culture, not Islam, and our Christian culture comes of course from the Jews. We all know that under Old Testament Law a woman had to produce the “tokens of virginity” if her husband so required or she could be returned to her father. But less known to Christians is that the New Testament also affirms this custom, and right from the mouth of Jesus Himself.

As ASJ has written before in explaining the proper understanding of the porneia clause in Jesus’ divorce prohibition (Mt. 19:9), the Lord is making allowance for this exact situation that has occurred in France. Jesus is saying that fornication (porneia) is valid grounds for a man to send away his wife and marry another. The fact that he uses the word for fornication and not the word for adultery clearly shows that Jesus is referring to a transgression that took place before marriage. Jesus is merely affirming the Torah in allowing a man to marry another woman. As we pointed out in our prior article, the only reason He gives this exception to the man and not to the woman is that the man would have no recourse for rebutting a false charge; the woman at least has a chance for vindication.

This text is very dear to the ASJ cause because it shows the importance of pre-marital virginity. It has remarkable applications in youth ministry where young women must be made aware that their future husbands will have the right to cancel their marriage if she is not a virgin. Therefore, any transgression against pre-marital chastity will have to be confessed to the husband-to-be before marriage. Anybody who says that Jesus doesn’t say much about waiting until marriage is easily refuted by this verse once properly translated and understood.

Now we must clear up a few things. First, this virginity test has obvious flaws; false positives are all too common. But the French outrage is not directed at the virginity test itself, but at the entire idea of pre-marital virginity. Modern courts would be just to refuse to admit the testimony of this crude virginity test. Even Jesus’ words stop short of requiring that a bride pass this test. But in this case we have something much less error-prone—the bride’s confession.

This brings us to another important point, namely, that none of this requires that a bride be a virgin before marriage. But the man does have a right to a virgin should he choose to exercise it. Of course he may not be too terribly concerned about virginity, or he may be upset but still accept the woman because of his love for her. But in all the zealousness to protect the rights of women, these protests are trampling on one of the Scripturally-sound, divinely-given rights of men—the right to marry a virgin. Why is nobody sticking up for the man who, we don’t know for sure, but may well have been tricked out of his virginity, and is now unable to give it to a woman who waited for him the way he waited for her?

All this also begs another question: does a woman have the right to expect virginity of a man should she so choose? The only proper answer is of course! While the ancient world may not have the semi-reliable test for a man’s chastity that nature provides for women, certainly modern paternity tests, possible sex tapes, and incriminating e-mails could be used by a woman if available to prove that her husband’s promise of virginity was false. She should be granted an annulment if she wanted one.

It must be said that all the commotion surrounding this ruling is hiding the fact that the bride in this case does not share the indignation of her “supporters.” For her part, the woman doesn’t want to appeal the decision that politicians left and right want to undertake on her behalf. She wants the annulment to be granted so she can get on with her life. She was quoted as saying “I don't know who's trying to think in my place. I wasn't the one who asked for the media attention, for people to talk about it, and for this to last so long.” Hats off to this woman, who, even if she caved to a moment of passion, at least has the decency not to let her transgression become a milestone in the march for women’s rights.

We hope that this ruling stands and that it serves to remind the French people of their past which valued virginity. How did the nation of St. Thérèse and St. Bernadette, which was visited in a most miraculous fashion by the Virgin of Virgins herself, ever descend to such a depth as to come rushing to the aid of a confessed fornicator who herself admits she lied outright to a man whose grave crime was wanting to ground his marriage in the purity of virginity? If it really is the case that Muslims in France are today’s defenders of virginity, then more power to them. If they hold to God’s laws more steadfastly than the descendants of Christians, then perhaps Providence, unable to tolerate the groaning over virginity, is slowly but surely giving Muslims the very land where the Little Flower once rooted her virgin soul.

For our part, we’re at a loss to explain the “outrage” this event is generating. We view the ruling as perfectly just, and even agrees perfectly with Christian teaching, although clearly this was not the concern of the court. It certainly isn’t dangerous to women to build a culture in which virginity is cherished if not revered. The real insult to women’s dignity comes when the importance of virginity is degraded. This is when women truly come to be viewed as objects of male pleasure, instead of vessels for carrying a treasure, virginity, that is sacred to the Lord. It seems from the reaction to this benign event that the secular world may be even more hostile to virginity that we previously thought. But one thing’s for sure: we need to translate The Loyal Lion into French right away.

 This article appeared in the June 4, 2008 issue of The Loyal Lion.