Who wrote this drivel?
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?