Divorcée seeks to lift ban on marriage

A WOMAN, who divorced her husband, yesterday took a High Court action to lift the ban preventing her from marrying his brother.

Maura O’Shea, aged 45, has been involved in a 20-year relationship with her brother-in-law, Micheal O’Shea, aged 49.

However, under early 20th century law, she is prevented from marrying him while her husband is still alive.

The court was told Mrs O’Shea only found out about the ban on their marrying each other weeks before they were due to be married some years ago.

Mrs O’Shea had bought her wedding dress and a reception was booked in Ballymaloe House in East Cork. However, when they were finalising arrangements with a registrar of marriages, the registrar noted they had the same surname. When they outlined what their connection was, the registrar indicated there might be a problem.

The couple claim the laws are capricious, irrational, unjust and outdated, breach their rights to marry, to form an “established marital family”, and to property under both the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, and ignore the introduction here of the right to divorce.

Such laws may have made sense when the dissolution of marriages was prohibited here, but ceased to have any rationality especially since the introduction of divorce in 1995, they contend.

The State disputes those claims and argues the laws are constitutional and necessary to protect marriage as a “lifelong” commitment and also to protect children from undue turmoil and confusion. To allow the type of marriage sought would potentially undermine existing marriages and be akin to the State encouraging the development of a sexual interest in the siblings of spouses.

The action was brought against the State by Maura O’Shea, Ballybraher, Ballycotton, Co Cork, and Michael O’Shea, also of Ballybraher, Ballycotton. The court heard Mrs O’Shea married John O’Shea, in the Catholic Church at Ladysbridge, Co Cork, on October 23, 1980. The couple separated about January 1985 and were divorced in May 2000.

The hearing concluded yesterday before Ms Justice Mary Laffoy who reserved judgment. The outcome of the case is being closely watched by couples in similar situations who, according to legal sources, did marry and are concerned about their status.