Who wrote this drivel?

A trifle, yes, but too niggling of a one to be ignored.

Today, in an editorial entitled "Is virginity 'essential'?" the National Post examines the case of a French appellate court overruling the annulment of a marriage between two Muslims, on the grounds that a false claim of virginity cannot be treated as a deal-breaker. The piece goes on to say that it is the position of the Post editors that they are "conflicted" over the ruling: that the state shouldn't be seen to be enforcing bizarre religious traditions, but neither should it be interfering in matters freely contracted.

Here's where they lose me:

Assuming both parties in a betrothal agree to such terms, why should their contract be torn up simply because the underlying Victorian view of sexuality has fallen out of favour?

French court. Muslim couple. Sorry but--how the hell did the poor bloody Victorians get blamed for this?