Supreme Court rules that only first marriage of Lebanese man is valid

Beta Ray Bill

I read this today:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/supreme-court-unanimously-rules-that-first-of-lebanese-mans-two-marriages-is-valid-under-irish-law-793737.html

I have to say, I'm a bit taken a back by it.

First off, this guy is a refugee, the tax payers of this country have provided care for him. Why the hell is challenging our laws? IMO If he want's the marriages to be Valid, he should go back home.

Second, How the hell did this make it to the supreme court (with 7 judges)?
This should have been struck out at a district court level. The law is very clear in relation to marriage in Ireland.

It also just goes to show that a lot of people from the middle east have absolutely no interest in integrating. This case IMO is fairly insulting to the women of Ireland.

And finally, does anyone have any idea how much this s going to cost the Tax payer? I'd imagine the legal costs for such a challenge wouldn't be cheap.

Fairly annoyed now I have to say.

It doesn't show that 'a lot' of people from anywhere want anything, just that this guy thinks he should be allowed two wives. He didn't get his way, the world didn't fall apart, and we'll all move on with our lives.

What a waste. Obviously in their unanimous (and obvious) judgment they also said that it's not definitive for other cases. Keep that conveyor belt going.

Drumpot

Did you email Joe?

Think he gets paid enough to fix these sort of things...

Beta Ray Bill

Candie wrote: »

It doesn't show that 'a lot' of people from anywhere want anything, just that this guy thinks he should be allowed two wives. He didn't get his way, the world didn't fall apart, and we'll all move on with our lives.

I apologise for the sweeping statement

Deleted User wrote: »

What a waste. Obviously in their unanimous (and obvious) judgment they also said that it's not definitive for other cases. Keep that conveyor belt going.

Any idea how much it cost?

Drumpot wrote: »

Did you email Joe?

Think he gets paid enough to fix these sort of things...

I fooking should have emailed Joe!
He'd be all over that!!!

corner of hells

Candie wrote: »

It doesn't show that 'a lot' of people from anywhere want anything, just that this guy thinks he should be allowed two wives. He didn't get his way, the world didn't fall apart, and we'll all move on with our lives.

And you can feck off with your sensible and logical approach.

Now I have a flaming torch and pitchfork to get rid of.

grahambo

grahambo wrote: »

Why the hell is challenging our laws? IMO If he want's the marriages to be Valid, he should go back home.

He sought to have his first wife enter here in 2003 but she was refused permission. In 2004, she was permitted to enter on condition he take a legal action as to whether his first marriage could be recognised under Irish law

grahambo wrote: »

The law is very clear in relation to marriage in Ireland.

Agreed, I would have thought Irish law would have recognised his first marriage over his second. There's more to this I think.

cajonlardo

Drumpot wrote: »

Did you email Joe?

Think he gets paid enough to fix these sort of things...

So, you and all the other little princesses are happy enough for our taxes to cover this bolllox?

No wonder arsewipes like yer man try it on. No one has the balls to tell his ilk to drop dead.

" I want 2 wives"
" Grand so, here is the Flight times back to 2 wife land "

megaten

cajonlardo wrote: »

So, you and all the other little princesses are happy enough for our taxes to cover this bolllox?

No wonder arsewipes like yer man try it on. No one has the balls to tell his ilk to drop dead.

" I want 2 wives"
" Grand so, here is the Flight times back to 2 wife land "

What are you doing about it?

Beta Ray Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed, I would have thought Irish law would have recognised his first marriage over his second. There's more to this I think.

Yes I read that, but it's confusing.
The first marriage is the one that's been recognised and not the second.

So what happens now?
One would assume that the woman from the second marriage is in Ireland, so what happens her now?

grahambo

grahambo wrote: »

Any idea how much it cost?

A fiver?

grahambo wrote: »

Yes I read that, but it's confusing.
The first marriage is the one that's been recognised and not the second.

So what happens now?
One would assume that the woman from the second marriage is in Ireland, so what happens her now?

Usual Irish fudge, not her fault the rules were broken/she's naturalised or whatever.

Deise Vu

Jesus Grahambo, you will give us right wing fascists a bad name if you don't even read the article you are outraged about. He is a citizen since 2000, no mention of being a refugee or tax-payer funded. His second wife was already here since 2001 and the first wife was given permission to enter in 2003 on condition he take a court action to find out if his first marriage would be recognised under Irish law.

Our asylum laws are ludicrous and need a radical overhaul but I wouldn't be holding this up as an example of it's disfunction.

cajonlardo

megaten wrote: »

What are you doing about it?

Short answer is that there isn't a whole lot I can do. Simply because there is HUGE money being made out of snag causing so & so's like him

Beta Ray Bill

Deise Vu wrote: »

Jesus Grahambo, you will give us right wing fascists a bad name if you don't even read the article you are outraged about. He is a citizen since 2000, no mention of being a refugee or tax-payer funded. His second wife was already here since 2001 and the first wife was given permission to enter in 2003 on condition he take a court action to find out if his first marriage would be recognised under Irish law.

Our asylum laws are ludicrous and need a radical overhaul but I wouldn't be holding this up as an example of it's disfunction.

I get all this.

I wouldn't say I'm right wing at all now, but all 3 came in as refugees, and that's fine. I don't care about that.
But why did he declare that both of them were his wives, when he should have known that having 2 wives is illegal here?

He clearly chanced his arm with the "This is my culture" line, and it's paid off for him.

Sorry, but I just find it extremely misogynistic, that this country would even entertain the notion of a man have multiple wives.

In the article is says the women support it, but in fairness they have no choice but to support it.

topper75

The system is set up to explicitly transfer pooled funds from the working Irish to outsiders.

And then transfer even greater sums to the judges and solicitors who run that system.

But I guess I need to be learn to be 'tolerant'.

Whatever that word means nowadays.

It really takes some cheek to willingly arrive in a country and move to change the laws of that country to suit your circumstance. How does a refugee fund a legal challenge like this? Did he short mortgage-backed securities in the crash?

Is this Leo's "European centre"?

grahambo

grahambo wrote: »

Yes I read that, but it's confusing.
The first marriage is the one that's been recognised and not the second.

So what happens now?
One would assume that the woman from the second marriage is in Ireland, so what happens her now?

The article says she's already a resident here, has been for years. Maybe nothing will change, this was just about getting the first marriage recognised so the wife could stay, as he was apparently instructed to do.

I guess it depends on why the application for his first wife was refused in the first place.

wakka12

And he didnt end up changing our laws..he wasnt allowed
moving on

c_man

What a disgrace. I thought we wanted marriage equality in this country.

topper75

wakka12 wrote: »

And he didnt end up changing our laws..he wasnt allowed
moving on

Move on because questions would be awkward.

Next client. Next case. Next hefty bill.

I think the story merits a lot of questions as to just who the heck we are letting into our state.

seamus

He wasn't trying to change our laws

Just thought I'd clarify that for people who read the OP and not the link.

The High Court had ruled that his first marriage was invalid - i.e. that the man was not married at all.

The Supreme Court ruling clarified that his first marriage is valid, and the second is not. Which is exactly what I thought the law was anyway.

What confused the issue is that his second wife came to live in Ireland before his first one. So there was clearly a bit of a mess up by the immigration authorities on this.

Sleepy

I really don't see why three people shouldn't be allowed to be married if that's what they all want tbh.

Beta Ray Bill

seamus wrote: »

He wasn't trying to change our laws

Just thought I'd clarify that for people who read the OP and not the link.

The High Court had ruled that his first marriage was invalid - i.e. that the man was not married at all.

The Supreme Court ruling clarified that his first marriage is valid, and the second is not. Which is exactly what I thought the law was anyway.

What confused the issue is that his second wife came to live in Ireland before his first one. So there was clearly a bit of a mess up by the immigration authorities on this.

I believe he knew exactly what he was doing here.

Clearly in Ireland ,the first marriage is the one that stands, and that's why he brought the 2nd wife in first. Let that application clear, and then attempt to bring in the 1st one. Knowing that the first marriage would be the one that was recognised.

He could have "left it" at the high court but didn't, he kept going.
Maybe he wasn't attempting to change our laws but he was without a doubt, trying to circumvent an extremely important one.
And once one person finds an effective legal bypass of a law, it may as well be written into law.

Frank O. Pinion

People are saying a man shouldn't be "allowed" two wives, how about women that want a husband and a wife? Equality for polyamorous people should be next.

Beta Ray Bill

Sleepy wrote: »

I really don't see why three people shouldn't be allowed to be married if that's what they all want tbh.

The women probably didn't have a choice at the time.
Women are treated like cattle in many middle eastern countries.

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

People are saying a man shouldn't be "allowed" two wives, how about women that want a husband and a wife? Equality for polyamorous people should be next.

Oh Jesus...

What have I started, Lock this thread quick!

c_man

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

People are saying a man shouldn't be "allowed" two wives, how about women that want a husband and a wife? Equality for polyamorous people should be next.

Yep, but also people should be allowed to marry themselves legally.

ebbsy

I think that the guy and his Mrs should be ****ed out of Ireland.

ScumLord

grahambo wrote: »

But why did he declare that both of them were his wives, when he should have known that having 2 wives is illegal here?

because they were both his wife's, if you went to china and they still had the one child rule would you just leave one of your children at home?

Sorry, but I just find it extremely misogynistic, that this country would even entertain the notion of a man have multiple wives.

In the article is says the women support it, but in fairness they have no choice but to support it.

You don't know that. Some people can make having multiple wives work, especially in the modern world, you can have two parents working and one at home childminding, it's makes perfect financial sense and if the women get along then there isn't an issue.

Your making a whole load of assumptions based purely on your own experience and ignorance of everything beyond your experience.

cajonlardo

ScumLord wrote: »

because they were both his wife's, if you went to china and they still had the one child rule would you just leave one of your children at home?

I can just imagine what would happen if I arrived in China and went to court to challenge their laws......................

Yamanoto

ScumLord wrote: »

if you went to china and they still had the one child rule would you just leave one of your children at home?

Given the glaringly obvious clash of cultural norms, I'd probably decide China wasn't the right spot for me.

Beta Ray Bill

ScumLord wrote: »

because they were both his wife's, if you went to china and they still had the one child rule would you just leave one of your children at home?

No.
I'd just not go there, or if I had to, I'd pay the extra tax for having an additional child.

ScumLord wrote: »

You don't know that. Some people can make having multiple wives work, especially in the modern world, you can have two parents working and one at home childminding, it's makes perfect financial sense and if the women get along then there isn't an issue.

Your making a whole load of assumptions based purely on your own experience and ignorance of everything beyond your experience.

Come on now... You genuinely think that:
A) That kind of setup would work in Western country. Family law is messed up enough here as it is.
That those women agreed to be married IE it was not arranged for them.

I'm far from ignorant.
I've a few friends from Libya and Pakistan, and I worked closely with some on from Iran.
I've a good understanding of that part of the world. (from what those people have told me)

One of my mates actually went back to Pakistan get married (arranged), I would have considered him fairly "Westernised", so was fairly shocked when he went back.

ScumLord

grahambo wrote: »

Come on now... You genuinely think that:
A) That kind of setup would work in Western country. Family law is messed up enough here as it is.
That those women agreed to be married IE it was not arranged for them.

I'm far from ignorant.
I've a few friends from Libya and Pakistan, and I worked closely with some on from Iran.
I've a good understanding of that part of the world. (from what those people have told me)

One of my mates actually went back to Pakistan get married (arranged), I would have considered him fairly "Westernised", so was fairly shocked when he went back.

I don't know for sure either way, I have heard american Muslims explain the reasons they introduced a second wife and they were all practical reasons. I think it's playing with fire but there are obvious advantages to having a marriage with 3 people over 2 people.

You seem to have a problem with it because it's alien and assume that our way is the correct way even though marriages with multiple wives has been common outside of the Christian faith and just uncommon in the Christian faith for thousands upon thousands of years..

Arranged marriages are also common, and not always unwanted. Your friend that went home to get married just goes to show even when you have the opportunity to find you own partner people still go back for arranged marriages. We all think the American model is the best but it's track record isn't great with a lot of marriages ending up in divorce. At least with an arranged marriage people know what the deal is, with an American marriage when the new couple lust wears off they're left in a marriage that isn't what they signed up for.

I'm not saying arranged marriages are better, I'm just saying they're another option, if the people involved are happy to go ahead then it's not our place to belittle them for it.

topper75

In the sense that having sex with horses is another option, yes.

'Our place' I would have thought is to defend institutions that are there for good reason.

ScumLord

topper75 wrote: »

In the sense that having sex with horses is another option, yes.

I have no idea what your trying to get at there??

'Our place' I would have thought is to defend institutions that are there for good reason.

Like what? Catholic marriage? If people want to marry multiple people I have no problem with it.

DEFTLEFTHAND

More waste.

Nothing new in this country.

Roger Hassenforder

c_man wrote: »

Yep, but also people should be allowed to marry themselves legally.

AFAIK, and I could be wrong, I don't think you're allowed marry yourself.

seamus

grahambo wrote: »

Come on now... You genuinely think that:
A) That kind of setup would work in Western country. Family law is messed up enough here as it is.
That those women agreed to be married IE it was not arranged for them.

Weirdly enough if you dig into it, adding a 3rd person to the marriage doesn't actually complicate things all that much. Instead of dividing by 2, you divide by 3, etc etc. No more than adding a 3rd owner to a company makes company law more complicated.

The complications are added in by religious tradition where the man has multiple wives, but the women only have one husband.

If you structure polygamy as a communal contract - i.e. everyone is married to everyone else - the law doesn't get much more complicated.

Children is a separate matter and should be a separate matter anyway. The laws around children should be the same regardless of whether the parents are or were or never were married. A married man and a single man should have exactly the same rights to their children.

So polygamy wouldn't complicate that either.

The arranged marriage issue is an interesting one. The pretence that bigamy is usually a result of forced marriage, but monogamy is not. We can't pretend that polygamy would introduce any new issues around forced marriage that don't already exist in monogamy.
Ultimately this is something a male-centric view where two people can fall in love and get married, but if you add a 3rd person they must have been coerced into it.

That view has no foundation in logic if you examine it.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

AFAIK, and I could be wrong, I don't think you're allowed marry yourself.

You can't enter into a contract with yourself. That's basically the bottom line of it. "Marrying" yourself is meaningless, since you are one person. In effect everyone is already married to themselves - you have exactly the same rights now as you would have if you married yourself.

One eyed Jack

grahambo wrote: »

Sorry, but I just find it extremely misogynistic, that this country would even entertain the notion of a man have multiple wives.

I wouldn't see it as misogynistic (if all parties are in agreement and are happy with the arrangement, play on!), but this country doesn't entertain the notion of a man having multiple wives, if by entertaining the notion you mean that polygamous marriages are recognised by the Irish Constitution. That appears to be why Judges were calling for clarification on the issue because of the changing cultural demographics in Ireland. If anything I'd say this case was an interesting test case.

In the article is says the women support it, but in fairness they have no choice but to support it.

To be even fairer, you'd be only guessing at that though, and that could be perceived as you suggesting that the women involved don't know their own minds. That would make your own claims of misogyny a bit... awkward!

seamus

grahambo wrote: »

I believe he knew exactly what he was doing here.

Clearly in Ireland ,the first marriage is the one that stands, and that's why he brought the 2nd wife in first. Let that application clear, and then attempt to bring in the 1st one. Knowing that the first marriage would be the one that was recognised.

I agree this is probably likely, though I'm skeptical that a refugee in another country with a different language could gain an insight into the legal specifics to such a degree for this to occur. Even in the 12 years here was here presumably waiting for his asylum application to come in.

I wonder if he had some advocacy group quietly coaching him on strategy to get this over the line.

arayess

only winner is this man .
he now has both wives allowed to remain here.

wonder if wife 2 can claim single mothers now...:pac:

ScumLord

arayess wrote: »

only winner is this man .

And maybe the children of both the women.

Widdershins

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know for sure either way, I have heard american Muslims explain the reasons they introduced a second wife and they were all practical reasons. I think it's playing with fire but there are obvious advantages to having a marriage with 3 people over 2 people.

You seem to have a problem with it because it's alien and assume that our way is the correct way even though marriages with multiple wives has been common outside of the Christian faith and just uncommon in the Christian faith for thousands upon thousands of years..

Arranged marriages are also common, and not always unwanted. Your friend that went home to get married just goes to show even when you have the opportunity to find you own partner people still go back for arranged marriages. We all think the American model is the best but it's track record isn't great with a lot of marriages ending up in divorce. At least with an arranged marriage people know what the deal is, with an American marriage when the new couple lust wears off they're left in a marriage that isn't what they signed up for.

I'm not saying arranged marriages are better, I'm just saying they're another option, if the people involved are happy to go ahead then it's not our place to belittle them for it.

Sorry, with arranged marriage the MAN knows what the deal is, because he holds the power, the woman often does not know a thing about the deal 'til she meets her husband. And in ''the American model'' there is the additional choice of divorcing and being assured of an equitable outcome under law, can you say the same for the two or more wives who had their marriages to strangers arranged? I just find it appalling to see this practice sanitised in the way you are now doing. Polygamous marriages where the women went into it entirely by choice are a VERY different matter to arranged ones, regardless of the number of spouses.
I know of too many cases where women had to flee and change their identities to escape this very fate.

mikeym

Who wants Two Nagging Wives??? :D:D

pangbang

Fair is fair ffs!

Theres that Irish refugee bloke over in Lebanon right now, challenging the laws of the Lebanese people.

He is being entertained by the Lebanese supreme court equivalent.

The Lebanese media are reporting on it.

Lebanese forums are chatting about it.

Cop on, you racist eejits! This is the multicultural world where ALL countries have to change to accommodate those from abroad!

What? Did you think it was just those few countries in the EU that have to change to accommodate the rest of the world? (literally AND figuratively!)

WRONG!

Yamanoto

One eyed Jack wrote: »

that could be perceived as you suggesting that the women involved don't know their own minds.

A sentiment you've oft expressed yourself, when discussing the selling of sex for monetary reward.

Nice to see you've come around though.

(if all parties are in agreement and are happy with the arrangement, play on!)

These backward cunts - all of them - give the Middle Ages a bad name.

It's abject bollocksology to go on about freedom of choice when women are treated like dirt in the offending cultures. The power dynamic is ridiculously skewed to benefit men and keep women subservient by denying them equal rights to education, professional careers and anything else that would empower them. And all supported by their preferred women-hating religious cult. In this cultural context these primitives with their many wives are just coming up with another way to keep women faoi chois. You could only be away with the fairies to spin this as a "free choice" between equals.

Why are people with these clearly inferior, cultural values even entertained in this supposedly progressive society? It's only slightly over a century since women received many equal rights in Western Europe. A big no from me to these imported troglodytes and their relentless misogyny being allowed to drag us back to the dark ages.

ScumLord

Widdershins wrote: »

Why are people with these clearly inferior, cultural values even entertained in this supposedly progressive society? It's only slightly over a century since women received many equal rights in Western Europe. A big no from me to these imported troglodytes and their relentless misogyny being allowed to drag us back to the dark ages.

Because the way you be a progressive society is to tolerate culture that you might see as inferior.

As you point out, it's only a century since the women's rights movement started in earnest, it's not over by the way, I think women would say a lot has been achieved but it's still an unfair society.

So for you to turn around in the middle of your rehabilitation and belittle the guy that's just showed up is a bit rich.

topper75

ScumLord wrote: »

I have no idea what your trying to get at there??

Like what? Catholic marriage? If people want to marry multiple people I have no problem with it.

I'm getting at the shoulder-shrug right-on liberalism that is probably best left on the college campus. Arranged marriages are not an equal alternative in our society in 2017. They are not just another option. They are an affront to our values and to reason itself.

I'm not in a Catholic marriage myself. That is not the issue. The issue is that marriage is a meaningful social institution here in Ireland, just as a limited company is, or our legislature. It is not there to be modified or watered down by outsiders.

ScumLord wrote: »

So for you to turn around in the middle of your rehabilitation and belittle the guy that's just showed up is a bit rich.

What? He is a citizen here for almost 2 decades. Is that not enough time to learn how things work here? He knew before coming that Ireland was a western country and that Lebanese mores have nothing to do with the place. Your framing of the situation sounds disingenuous to say the least.

ScumLord

topper75 wrote: »

I'm getting at the shoulder-shrug right-on liberalism that is probably best left on the college campus.

:rolleyes: Of course you are.

Arranged marriages are not an equal alternative in our society in 2017. They are not just another option. They are an affront to our values and to reason itself.

Nonsense, there are people in 3 way relationships, do you want to ban threesomes too, is that just an impossible option that no one should be allowed to do? Should we lock up the likes of Hugh Hefner for keeping what was basically a harem?

I'm not in a Catholic marriage myself. That is not the issue. The issue is that marriage is a meaningful social institution here in Ireland, just as a limited company is, or our legislature. It is not there to be modified or watered down by outsiders.

It is, constantly, Ireland didn't invent business concepts, we imported them, if someone came along with a better way of doing it we imported that too, most factories use manufacturing techniques developed by the Japanese. Irish law is a mish mash of British and American.

There's nothing unique or special about Irish marriage or business. It's all imported ideals.

What? He is a citizen here for almost 2 decades. Is that not enough time to learn how things work here? He knew before coming that Ireland was a western country and that Lebanese mores have nothing to do with the place. Your framing of the situation sounds disingenuous to say the least.

Do you know everything there is to know about Irish law and culture? He went through the legal process and lost, like any Irish citizen he has the right to make use of the court to settle matters, that's what the courts are for.

There's nothing wrong with what he tried to achieve.

Widdershins

ScumLord wrote: »

Because the way you be a progressive society is to tolerate culture that you might see as inferior.

As you point out, it's only a century since the women's rights movement started in earnest, it's not over by the way, I think women would say a lot has been achieved but it's still an unfair society.

So for you to turn around in the middle of your rehabilitation and belittle the guy that's just showed up is a bit rich.

There's nothing progressive about tolerating inferior cultural practices..especially the abhorrent kind. Nothing at all. It's senseless.

I think you're confusing me with another poster there in your second paragraph.
There's simply no comparison that can genuinely be made there anyway. I'm a woman and I don't agree with your angle, by the way.

BlinkingLights

Actually the wording inserted after the Marriage Referendum should have made it abundantly clear that this is not constitutional:

"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"

As law goes, it doesn't get much clearer than the above.