Marriage Made In Hell

I really don't like to pick on one particular country. It rubs me the wrong way, no matter what the country. Probably because I hear what I perceive as enough of it elsewhere in the blogosphere.

But at the risk of being the pot calling the kettle black, let me continue. Sometimes you hear enough about one place that something clicks. It feels like you may just have reached critical mass. So with my apologies to my friends across the pond, let me explain.

I've heard some strange stories from the UK over the past year. As just a few examples, first there were the Muslim medical students who refused to attend lectures or answer exam questions on "alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases" because it offended their religious beliefs. A small number even refused to treat patients of the opposite sex. Okay. I guess that just went hand in hand with some U.K. stores permitting Muslim checkout operators to refuse to handle customers’ alcohol purchases on religious grounds.

Then last month, the Archbishop of Canterbury stated that the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable". Nice of him to note, I suppose, that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

But here's a new one for ya. You're likely aware that much of Canadian and American 'common law' [judge made law] comes from centuries of old English common law. Well, the only 'up side' I can see to this story is that some English judges appear to still have their heads about them.

Or at least, thank God, enough sense to set aside the "marriage" of a severely autistic man 26 year old man with the mental age of 3 year old to his Bangladeshi bride, whom he has never met. The Muslim wedding ceremony, it would seem, was conducted over the telephone.

Gee, too bad this young fellow didn't have his parents around to look out for him. What's that, you say? He did? In fact, it was his parents, originally from Bangladesh but now living in England, who found him his blushing bride. And argued in court that the marriage should be recognized in English law.

Me? I much prefer words of common sense.

But the Court of Appeal said IC was unable to give valid consent to marriage under English law and said it had been "potentially abusive".

- - -

The judge held that the marriage was "sufficiently offensive to the conscience of the English court that the court should refuse to recognise it and should refuse to give effect to the law of Bangladesh and sharia law".

So, what do you suppose that was all about? Apparently, the court was told the wedding was to allow the bride to obtain a visa and join her husband in Britain. Oh. Funny how it sorts of reminds me of that 'other' story, the one where the two women with Down's Syndrome were used as homicide suicide bombers last month.

At any rate, I found the last line in the "marriage from hell" story rather interesting. Now it's all starting to make a little more sense.

Recent calls from the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams for Islamic law to be incorporated into the British legal system were met with demands for him to quit.

I would seriously like to know if my take on any of this is out of line. So any readers with more current or relevant info on all this, please set me straight.

With thanks to Neptunus Lex and Mother of Shrek for the links to the various links