Indonesians now know for sure that the state does not tolerate polygamy outside the conditions regulated by law. On Wednesday the Constitutional Court ruled against businessman Muhammad Insa, who wanted an easing of the restrictions on polygamy in the Marriage Law.
Until yesterday we weren't all that sure – given all the reports of men taking a second wife, clearly without fulfilling the legal conditions. These conditions include the consent of the first wife and that the first wife cannot have children or is unable to fulfill her "wifely duties".
While even these legal conditions still sound unfair to women, many men were clearly not following them in taking a second wife, third or even fourth. The most obvious example is first wives who very clearly had children, as was the case with the first wife of well-known cleric Abdullah Gymnastiar.
Hardly anyone suggested he be tried for violating the law, because his second marriage was only one of scores of similar ones recognized by religious authorities.
In such marriages it is enough to follow the Koran, or more precisely the popular interpretation of the Koran. Regarding polygamy the perceived religious ruling is that having up to four wives is a Muslim man's God-given right.
That the Koran states that the husband must be fair to all wives is not a popular verse, nor is the verse saying that being fair to more than one wife is not possible.
But the Constitutional Court sent a loud and clear message in upholding the Marriage Law that the state will protect the weaker in society.
The articles containing restrictions on polygamy, said court chief Jimly Asshiddiqie, "are intended to protect the basic rights of wives and prospective wives of men who engage in polygamy".
Studies have found that women in polygamous marriages suffer various disadvantages, including neglect of the previous wife or wives and their children. Granted, most of these studies are by groups advocating women's rights.
Many an activist has proposed banning polygamy altogether, including officials in the previous ministry of religious affairs. An attempt to emulate Tunisia in its banning of polygamy, on the grounds that it brings more harm than good, drew an outcry loud enough to drown out the discourse altogether – until the request for a judicial review on the issue by Muhammad Insa.
He filed the request because his wife refused to agree to his taking a second wife. Muhammad Insa argued that the 1974 Marriage Law was unconstitutional because it violated his right to practice his religion freely.
The businessman, we must note, is a good citizen. He did not just go ahead like many others who easily manage to get hold of forged documents or get married by religious authorities without the consent of the state.
He made the unprecedented move of seeking legal recourse. Some Muslims supporting his stance note how difficult life choices are – Allah hates divorce, there are more women than men, women won't be separated from their children, the women don't have incomes, so what's a man with a man's needs to do?
And the Koran has the perfect answer; who is man to contradict His words?
The petitioner also raised the issue of the ineffectiveness of the law – and here he raised an important issue. Because the law makes it difficult to remarry, many second marriages are unregistered, he noted, potentially depriving the children of these marriages benefits such as inheritance.
While women across the nation will rejoice in Wednesday's ruling, it remains glaringly clear that the intention of the law, as stated by Jimly, is lost on many citizens.
The sad fact is that many will still accuse the state of violating a God-given right; and with weak law enforcement, marriages ignoring the rights of women will likely continue.
For the moment, however, hats off to the Constitutional Court, which occasionally shows that the state does take care of its citizens.