Why no, Sneaky I do not violate my beliefs. Perhaps it is because I’ve never been faced with death by torture. Perhaps if faced with that, I would crumble like a cheap card table.
However, I do know I would not immigrate to a country that made me wrap myself up like a mummy. I would rather die fighting for my rights and the rights of my children than to seek safety at the expense of me and my children’s freedom.
Legal visitors hands off.
Immigrants married in their country under their law is not valid if it breaks the law of the country they immigrate to.
We are not living in not so long ago but rather the present.
The present is only a point in time between the past and the future.
Do you violate the law? 
Which one? …
They are not breaking the law if they were married when they came here.
They did not break the law when they married, but if the woman/child is underage then they are breaking the law.
I do understand why they capitulate so easily to foreigners in Germany, although I don’t agree with it. They are sensitive to this kind of issue because of the Holocaust and the horrors that Adolf Hitler committed during that time against ■■■■■ and eventually, against other demographics that did not fit his vision. They feel horrible for it, so they try to compensate for it…but they’re making a grave mistake by letting just anyone into the country.
Libs carry similar guilt here in the US too.
No. You are missing the point. If they enter the country legally married under the law of their country, they are legally married here. It is exactly like the varying laws regarding marriage in the 50 States. If one State bans marriage between first cousins, for example, and another State allows it, a couple married in the State that allows it are still legally married if they visit or move to a State that does not allow it.
And in the present child marriage is still perfectly acceptable in much of the world.
The Federal Court of Justice is of the opinion that the statutory order of ineffectiveness of the marriage effectively concluded by a child under 16 years of age under foreign law in Art. 13 para. 3 no. 1 EGBGB - subject to the exceptions in the transitional provision of Art. 229 § 44 Par. 4 EGBGB - insofar as it is incompatible with Art. 1, Art. 2 para. 1, Art. 3 para. 1 and Art. 6 para. 1 GG, as the effectiveness of the marriage under German law in general and without consideration of the law concrete case is denied, and - in contrast to the transitional arrangements for child marriages concluded in Germany under Article 229 § 44 para. 1 EGBGB - also such before July 22, 2017, according to foreign law effectively closed marriages become ineffective,which, like the marriage to be assessed in the present case, were effective and could only be annulled under German law until the law on combating child marriages entered into force. Bundesgerichtshof
Here we have:
The new law, set to receive parliamentary approval by July, is seen as a protective move especially for girls by annulling foreign marriages involving minors.
It will allow youth welfare workers to take into care underaged girls even if they were legally married abroad and, if deemed necessary, separate them from their husbands.
“Children do not belong in the marriage registry office or the wedding hall,” said Justice Minister Heiko Maas in a statement sent to AFP.
“We must not tolerate any marriages that harm minors in their development.”
“The underaged must be protected as much as possible,” he said, adding that as a result of the change no minor must suffer restrictions on their asylum or residential status.
The age of consent for all marriages in Germany will be raised from 16 to 18 years. Currently in some cases an 18-year-old is allowed to marry a 16-year-old.
Foreign marriages involving spouses under 16 are considered invalid, and those involving 16 or 17-year-olds can be annulled by family courts. https://www.thelocal.de/20170405/germany-cracks-down-on-foreign-child-marriages
Yes in much of the world and that is fine if that is their culture. However, in Germany it is not acceptable or legal (I’m actually not even sure on the legal status yet).
My point being that if a person migrates to a country by choice they need to respect the laws and the cultures, not re-create the world they tried to escape.
I know it is hard but it is what they chose. No one forced them to immigrate to a culture that is not compatible with theirs.
The legal status is that the German Constitution allows it. That’s the premise behind the article in the OP.
Raids that have discovered these weapons have been ongoing for several years. One might think that Angela Merkel should have learned a lesson or two by now.
Good. Can you imagine the outcry if police started raiding Mosques in this country?
Hell, the left wanted to burn down the Bush administration for simply having radical Mosques under surveillance.
Why are you citing German law?
The topic is about Germany and the judge’s ruling in Germany? 