Wedding law in England and Wales is badly out of date.
We campaign for marriage to be equally open to all, regardless of religion or belief.
Time for one wedding law for all.
In England and Wales, different laws apply depending on whether a wedding is Anglican, Jewish, Quaker, another religion or not religious at all (a civil wedding or partnership).
This is unfair, confusing and absurd.
Most religious weddings must be held in a registered place of worship, while civil weddings and partnerships must take place in approved premises. Jewish and Quaker weddings can take place anywhere.
This system leads to inequality. Members of religions which don't have fixed places of worship, or don't use their places of worship for weddings, are disadvantaged. And members of nonreligious communities such as Humanism have no way of getting legally married according to their philosophical beliefs.
The process for a place of worship to register itself for marriage is much cheaper than for approved premises for civil ceremonies. This in turn contributes to the cost of civil marriages and partnerships.
Over 80% of opposite-sex marriages in England and Wales in 2022 were civil marriages. But only 16% of recognised wedding venues in England and Wales can hold civil marriages. The remaining 84% are religious venues.
While approved premises for civil weddings and partnerships must by law hold ceremonies for same-sex couples, this is not the case for places of worship. In 2022, only 2% of places of worship were registered for same-sex weddings. This considerably reduces the options for same-sex couples. Whereas opposite-sex weddings are in slow decline, same-sex weddings are increasing.
UPDATE: The Law Commission has now made its final recommendations on reforming wedding law on England and Wales. Please write to your MP in support of the recommendations...
Unregistered religion-only 'marriages'
The complexity of marriage law may contribute to the rise in couples who have religious 'wedding' ceremonies that are not legally-binding.
A signification proportion of Muslim couples are in an Islamic 'nikah' union lacking the full legal rights and protections of a recognised marriage.
Unregistered marriages can undermine women's rights in particular. If a woman in a nikah is 'divorced' suddenly, or against her wishes, she can be left homeless and without any money or assets.
The situation is made worse by sharia councils or 'courts' which dispense religious rulings on Islamic marriage, child custody and divorce. These are not courts of law but there are concerns some Muslim women, especially those not born in the UK or unable to speak English, perceive them as having real legal authority.
Sharia councils leave children vulnerable and discriminate openly against women. To seek a religious divorce a woman must gain permission from these almost entirely male councils, and there are reports of women being denied this request even in cases where they have faced abuse.
Reforming wedding laws will not solve these problems completely. But making wedding laws simpler and fairer can encourage couples to gain the legal protections of a registered marriage.
Take action!
1. Write to your MP
Tell your MP to support the Law Commission's recommendations for wedding reform.
2. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
3. Join the National Secular Society
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
Bishop helps scupper amendment to let CoE allow same-sex marriage
Posted: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:19
An amendment to a bill that would make it easier for the Church of England to allow same-sex marriage has been withdrawn following opposition from a bishop.
The amendment to the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill would have allowed the C of E to accept same-sex marriages without consulting parliament.
It would also have removed a legal exemption which prevents Church of England and Church in Wales clergy from solemnising same-sex marriages without a change in the law.
Richard Faulkner moved the amendment at a House of Lords committee debate on the bill last Friday. He said he hoped it would be seen as "an attempt to build on the success of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013".
But he withdrew it after Stephen Cottrell, the bishop of Chelmsford, and others voiced opposition on the basis of the potential impact on the Church of England.
Cottrell expressed "regret" that the amendment was tabled, saying it introduced "a discordant note" into the Lords' consideration into an "otherwise uncontentious" bill, and called for its withdrawal.
He said the amendment "would only make matters more difficult for the church" because it would put marriage legislation "at odds with ecclesiastical law".
The bishop said the C of E "seeks to welcome all people, including LGBTI+ people", but added that "there are questions about how this welcome can be expressed".
National Secular Society honorary associate Michael Cashman added his name to the amendment. During the debate he said it would not "compel the Church of England to do anything" and would instead "remove the legislative barrier from the Church progressing" down the root to permitting same sex marriage.
He said that the amendment "rightly places this decision in the hands of the religious institution rather than parliament." He noted that "other religions are not so prohibited and are allowed to make their decisions".
He said he had witnessed how religious belief is used to "deny people basic equality" and said the wanted to "come to a time when that history is far, far behind us."
He added: "The right reverend prelate says that he regrets that we are bringing this amendment forward; I also regret that we have to bring forward an amendment that addresses such basic inequalities in the second decade of the 21st century."
The amendment was also supported by Elizabeth Barker, who said that the deference to the wishes of the church in the drafting of marriage legislation meant civil ceremonies cannot have any religious content at all. She said that this "protection for the church" resulted in "quite extensive and deeply hurtful ramifications."
Peers including Ray Collins and Paul Scriven also backed the amendment.
Faulkner withdrew the amendment but reserved the right to bring it back at the report stage.
NSS campaigns officer Megan Manson said it was "very disappointing" that the amendment was withdrawn.
She said: "The bishop of Chelmsford says the Church of England seeks to welcome LGBT+ people, but his opposition to this amendment suggests otherwise.
"The lords who tabled this amendment made clear that this is about giving the church greater freedom to make its own decisions, independent from parliament.
"But the bishop's influential opposition hints that some in the church are using parliament as a shield to help them in their internal disputes over same-sex marriage.
"The debate surrounding this amendment also demonstrates the wide-ranging implications of having an established church, with its rules and practices so intimately linked with the state and its bishops given automatic representation in the House of Lords. It means the church faces barriers to progression and change like no other religious organisation in this country.
"It also means the church's involvement in legislation has ramifications that reach far beyond its own congregation. Laws designed to accommodate the wishes of the church affect us all. This is why we still see inequities in marriage."
The NSS campaigns for the disestablishment of the Church of England and marriage reform for greater equality and fairness. Last year the NSS revealed that it is significantly harder for those seeking same-sex or non-religious weddings to get married than those seeking religious ceremonies in England and Wales.
Another amendment moved by Robert Hayward, Collins and Cashman to legalise same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland was also withdrawn.
Cashman said this amendment struck "an appropriate balance" between the legislative role of the Northern Ireland Assembly and "the responsibility of legislators at Westminster to ensure that equality is implemented".
But government peer Susan Williams said the government had "made it very clear that same-sex marriage is a devolved issue". She said the Northern Ireland Assembly was "the proper place for such legislation to be considered".
Image: Stephen Cottrell, via Wikimedia Commons, © Bashereyre [CC BY-SA 3.0]
NSS backs call for review of role of sharia ‘courts’ in divorce
Posted: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 12:02
The National Secular Society has backed calls for the government to withdraw divorce guidance which encourages women from minority religious backgrounds to turn to religious 'courts'.
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans has joined campaigners in signing an open letter to the Ministry of Justice which has been published on the website of Southall Black Sisters (SBS). SBS campaigns for the rights of women in minority communities.
The letter calls for "an urgent review into sharia and civil marriage and divorce laws and to guarantee access to justice for all".
The signatories, led by Gita Sahgal of the Centre for Secular Space and Pragna Patel of SBS, say the application form for a divorce undermines "the validity of a civil divorce under English law".
The form says: "If you entered into a religious marriage as well as a civil marriage, these divorce proceedings may not dissolve the religious part of your marriage. It is important that you contact the relevant religious authority and seek further guidance if you are unsure."
The signatories call on the government to withdraw this guidance.
"If the government is serious about gender equality and ending violence against women, why is it undermining the validity of a civil divorce under English law? Why is it pushing women towards religious courts?
"For decades, the civil divorce has been the valid certificate demanded by courts abroad, regardless of whether there is also a religious marriage such as a Sikh, Hindu or Muslim ceremony. This guidance undermines women's rights and the recognition of divorces awarded by British courts."
The letter says research has found that the "power and control of religious fundamentalist networks over Muslims has grown enormously over the last 30 years". This had led to "widespread" beliefs that civil marriage is unnecessary, women must have a divorce certificate issued by a sharia 'court' in an apparent judicial procedure and they must get this 'certificate' even if they already have a civil divorce.
The letter also calls on the government to "overhaul outdated marriage and divorce laws" and welcomes a recent High Court decision to declare a Muslim 'marriage' void, rather than a non-marriage.
The decision entitled Nasreen Akhter, who went to court to ask for a divorce, to a decree of nullity. This rules her marriage void and potentially entitles her to a financial relief. The judgment does not recognise sharia 'law', as some media reports have misleadingly suggested.
The signatories said this decision should be "examined for its relevance to marital captivity, forced and child marriage".
The NSS campaigns to protect the principle of one law for all and calls for reform of the marriage laws to ensure greater equality and fairness.
Commenting on his decision to sign the letter Mr Evans said: "Given the adverse effect of sharia 'courts' on women's rights, it is important that the government examines its own complicity in keeping religious fundamentalists in business.
"By advising women from minority backgrounds to turn to these bodies when they get divorced, the government is indulging in the bigotry of low expectations.
"The state should treat marriage and divorce as civil processes, governed by what is best for the individuals involved and society as a whole. But the government's guidance leaves women at the mercy of religious authorities who do not share these priorities, endangering their rights.
"The best way to ensure marriage and divorce are handled fairly is to recognise the supremacy of civil law over the religious and secularise the marriage laws."
Text of the letter
In the light of recent court decisions on marriage and divorce, today SBS and others have written to the Ministry of Justice, calling for an urgent review into sharia and civil marriage and divorce laws and to guarantee access to justice for all.
We welcome the recent High Court decision in Akhter v Khan [2018] EWFC 54 in the UK, to declare that a Muslim marriage contract (nikkah) was 'void', rather than a 'non-marriage'. Shabaz Khan had refused to divorce Nasreen Akhter on the grounds that they did not have a valid marriage registered under English law. This had the effect of keeping Nasreen Akhter in marital captivity and denying her legal rights under English family law.
The outcome means that Nasreen Akthar is entitled to seek a decree of nullity, and hopefully, to obtain financial relief against Shabaz Khan. Even though the decision turned on the specific facts of the case, it is nevertheless significant for women trapped in unregistered marriages and should be examined for its relevance to marital captivity, forced and child marriage.
The judgment does not recognise 'sharia' laws as some in the media have misleadingly stated. It deals with the knotty problem of women who believe that they are married but find that they have an unrecognised religious marriage only. This case shows that they can turn to the formal legal system. In fact, the judgement deals a blow to those who justify the sharia 'courts' as the only recourse for women who have not registered their marriages.
Our research shows that the power and control of religious fundamentalist networks over Muslims has grown enormously over the last thirty years. This has led to a widespread belief that a civil marriage is not necessary, that women must have a divorce certificate issued by a sharia 'court' in an apparent judicial procedure; and that they must get this 'certificate' even if they already have a civil divorce.
While the judgement is a step in the right direction, the government urgently needs to examine its own complicity in keeping religious fundamentalists in business. Sharia 'courts' have been actively tolerated in Britain by being given charitable status and treated as partners by the police and local councils. While the government rejected the recommendation of the sharia review headed by Mona Siddiqui for regulation of the sharia councils; it has quietly ensured the continuing power of religious courts.
The application form for a divorce (Form D8) actively encourages women to turn to religious bodies. It states 'If you entered into a religious marriage as well as a civil marriage, these divorce proceedings may not dissolve the religious part of your marriage. It is important that you contact the relevant religious authority and seek further guidance if you are unsure.'
If the government is serious about gender equality and ending violence against women, why is it undermining the validity of a civil divorce under English law? Why is it pushing women towards religious courts? For decades, the civil divorce has been the valid certificate demanded by courts abroad, regardless of whether there is also a religious marriage such as a Sikh, Hindu or Muslim ceremony. This guidance undermines women's rights and the recognition of divorces awarded by British courts.
We call on the government to immediately withdraw this guidance from the divorce application form; to address the lack of access to justice brought about by cuts to legal aid; to overhaul outdated marriage and divorce laws and to take active measures to end religious courts and their control over women's lives.
Gita Sahgal, Director, Centre for Secular Space
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Yasmin Rehman, Women's Rights Campaigner
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Afsana Lachaux, Women's Rights Campaigner
Ahlam Akram, Founder, Basira
Amina Lone, Women's Rights Campaigner
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian & Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Peter Tatchell, Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation
Rahila Gupta, Writer
Rumana Hashem, Spokesperson, Community Women Against Abuse
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and Critical Sisters Director
Stephen Evans, Chief Executive Officer, National Secular Society
