Wedding law in England and Wales is badly out of date.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
High Court rules against sharia-only divorce claim
Posted: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:40
The Family Division of the High Court has ruled against a man who claimed his marriage could only be dissolved under sharia, and that his wife must travel to Pakistan for a divorce.
After the woman petitioned for a divorce in England, her husband argued that a sharia marriage could not be dissolved by a UK court, Asian Image reported.
The unidentified man claimed that because the marriage was conducted under sharia, his wife, who has both British and Pakistani nationality, had to travel to Pakistan to pursue the divorce.
But Mr Justice Francis rejected his arguments and said that it would have "far-reaching consequences" to accept the husband's line of argument, including "racial and gender discrimination".
"It would be racial discrimination because what is said is that because the wife has dual nationality, both British and Pakistani, that as a national of Pakistan she should be treated differently from a British citizen who is not a national of Pakistan."
The judge added that it was "clear" that "the rights granted to men in Pakistan to secure divorces pursuant to the laws of that country are different from the rights granted to women and that it is more onerous for a woman to secure a divorce in Pakistan than it is for a man."
If he accepted the man's claims, Mr Justice Francis said it would mean the woman would be "subjected to different rules of English law than people of other faiths or other nationalities living here."
He concluded that she had every right to pursue a divorce in England.
"So far as the husband is concerned, he says that he was married pursuant to Sharia law, that is a religious contract, and he contends that only Pakistan has the jurisdiction to hear this divorce.
"He does not want to get divorced and does not intend to get divorced.
"The consequence, therefore, of his proposition is that the wife, who works and lives in England and pays her taxes in England and is habitually resident here, and domiciled here, at least for tax purposes, should have to travel to Pakistan to secure a divorce."
The National Secular Society has welcomed the ruling. NSS campaigns director Stephen Evans commented, "The alternative would mean a British citizen being subjected to sharia law abroad just to seek a divorce. We are pleased the judge has protected her rights and taken a stand against the imposition of sharia law via this backdoor."
Ashers Bakery loses appeal over cake with “Support Gay Marriage” slogan
Posted: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:32
A bakery firm which cancelled an order for a cake with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage" has lost its appeal against the ruling that they had unlawfully discriminated.
The Court of Appeal rejected their appeal that they were being forced to make a political statement they did not agree with.
In the appeal the bakery said they were being forced to print a message they did not agree with, but the court said that "the issue of forced speech only arose because the appellants chose to provide" a customised cake service.
The court found that "The fact that a baker provides a cake for a particular team or portrays witches on a Halloween cake does not indicate any support for either."
The case was initially brought about on behalf of Gareth Lee, an LGBT rights activist who placed an order with Ashers Bakery for a cake with the words "Support Gay Marriage" printed on it.
Though the order for the cake with the personalised message was initially accepted, several days later Mr Lee was contacted by Karen McArthur of Ashers Bakery who said they would not be able to make the cake because the slogan went against their religious beliefs and that she should not have accepted the order. Mr Lee was given a refund.
The bakery contended in their appeal that they objected specifically to the slogan "Support Gay Marriage" and were not discriminating against LGBT customers. The bakery said they did not know what Mr Lee's sexual orientation was when he placed the order, but the court found that the original ruling of direct discrimination was correct.
Northern Ireland's Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan sided with the initial ruling that found Ashers had "discriminated against the respondent directly on the grounds of sexual orientation contrary to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2006".
The Belfast Court of Appeal ruled that it was the word "Gay" which "prevented the order from being fulfilled" and that Ashers Bakery would have fulfilled an order for a cake with the slogan "Support Marriage".
"The reason that the order was cancelled was that the appellants would not provide a cake with a message supporting a right to marry for those of a particular sexual orientation. This was a case of association with the gay and bisexual community and the protected personal characteristic was the sexual orientation of that community. Accordingly this was direct discrimination," the judgement said.
The Attorney General contended that the bakery were required to "produce a political message with theological content to both of which they objected on the grounds of their own religious belief and political opinion".
They were therefore "at a disadvantage" compared to those holding pro-gay marriage views, he argued.
Karen McArthur told the court: "as part of my faith I believe it would be sinful for me to say or do anything which has the intention or effect of promoting homosexual sexual relations or same sex marriage."
But the court concluded that the legislation treated Ashers Bakery fairly, and that "Anyone who applies a religious aspect or a political aspect to the provision of services may be caught by equality legislation, not because the legislation treats their religious belief of political opinion less favourably but because that person seeks to distinguish, on a basis that is prohibited, between those who will receive their service and those who will not."
Considering calls for a so-called 'conscience clause' to allow types of discrimination against LGBT people on religious grounds, the judges' ruling said that "The answer is not to have the legislation changed and thereby remove the equality protection concerned. The answer is for the supplier of services to cease distinguishing, on prohibited grounds, between those who may or may not receive the service."
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the verdict was "a defeat for freedom of expression."
However, writing on the BBC website, legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said there was "nothing in the court's decision requiring Ashers or any other business to promote a view with which the company's directors disagreed."
Ashers Bakery was supported in the case by the Christian Institute.
