Legalizing polygamy

A while ago, looking into a case gave a revolutionary decision. The case was about a woman objecting to a lower courts verdict rejecting her heritage rights on grounds that although she lived together with a man like husband and wife, as she and the man did not marry, she was not eligible for heritage rights. The Court of Appeal said as the man was not married to someone else, and since until the man’s death the woman spent many years with him and shared a life, she was eligible for heritage rights like a "legal wife." That decision of the Court of Appeal was, of course, one taken with a humanitarian approach. But, still, the key element of the verdict was that the woman was given heritage rights because the man was not married to someone else and the woman had lived - even though outside the marriage bond - together with the man for many years like a married couple.

Yet another deform
The parliamentary Justice Commission has been debating for many days a new draft which, when enacted, will replace the present law on debts. While the country is discussing some other very important issues, the commission is silently completing its debate on the 649-article comprehensive draft law on debts.

What’s wrong in that? As conditions change and the country transforms itself to European norms and standards, it must be normal to feel the need to make comprehensive amendments in some laws lagging behind in content or mentality, or to replace them with totally new ones.

Civil marriage and gender equality - despite all the complaints we have as regards to the insufficient application of the norm in Turkey - are very important for the protection of womens' rights. Rather than indulging in practices that may provide incentives to polygamy or religious marriages, the state must try to enforce better application of gender equality and enhancing womens' rights, promoting political representation of women and perhaps providing women some sort of a positive discrimination in employment.

Using the Court of Appeal’s earlier verdict recognizing heritage rights of an unmarried woman, and in a manner contradicting the Civil Code encouraging married life and declaring illegal religious marriages or polygamy practices, in article 55 of the draft (changing the previous article 47) that regulates "moral indemnity rights" the reference to "family" in the old law was deleted and instead it was stressed that "close associates" will be eligible to receive compensation.

Of course there is no reference in the draft to "heritage rights" but many legal experts are of the opinion that after this law is enacted not only "members of the family" - that is the wife/husband and children of the family - will have "compensation" rights if a man or woman dies in accident or loses his/her life on duty, but also "close associates" may demand compensation.

Thus, in effect, they say, woman who live with a man with a religious marriage deal which is not recognized and is condemned as illegal by the state may demand compensation under this draft and based on that right, may go to court and demand heritage rights as well. Thus, this is indeed an attempt to bend the Civil Code, go around the civil marriage regulation and legitimize religious marriages and polygamy...

But, on the other hand, young engaged girls in particular, who lose their beloved in the war against terrorism or on duty, may benefit from compensation rights and from this aspect, this arrangement might be rather useful.

Thus, perhaps rather than using a vague "close associates" term in describing people eligible to receive indemnity, the law must be more specific and while healing a social problem doors should not be legally opened to polygamy.