Activist judge makes bigamy an Irish joke, by Gary Johns.
The husband was a refugee from Lebanon and now is a naturalised Irish citizen. In Lebanon he had two marriages (the first in 1975 and the second in 1988), lived with both wives and had children with both.
Under Lebanese law and sharia law, a Lebanese Muslim man may marry up to four women. … The husband went to Ireland as an asylum-seeker.
He was recognised as a refugee and became entitled to bring members of his family, including his “spouse”.
The husband applied for the second wife. She was admitted with a number of children, expressly on the basis that she was the wife of the husband. She is now an Irish citizen.
In these proceedings she has supported the claim of the first wife to be recognised, while also maintaining her own claim that she is validly married. The Irish court decided that the marriage of the husband with the first wife was valid as of the date of its inception.
I draw now from the thoughts of an experienced lawyer and good friend.
“The Irish court sounds reasonable, but in effect it usurps Irish marriage law.” What the court should have said is: “Your first marriage was valid at the date of inception under the law of Lebanon. It is no longer valid, under the law of Ireland, the moment you had your second wife recognised as your wife in Ireland.”
Or the court could have said: “The first marriage was valid in Lebanon, and is still valid in Ireland. The second marriage was valid in Lebanon, but bigamous in Ireland.”
But the PC narrative reigns supreme over the written law. Who controls the judges controls the law in practice.
hat-tip Stephen Neil