Wedding law in England and Wales is badly out of date.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
Tribunal to rule on Gay clergyman refused NHS chaplaincy job because he is in same-sex marriage
Posted: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:10
A Bishop stripped a Church of England clergyman of the licence needed to take a hospital chaplaincy job because he is in a same-sex marriage.
Canon Jeremy Pemberton has now taken his case to an employment tribunal and is arguing under the 2010 Equality Act that he was the victim of unlawful discrimination at the hands of the Church. The tribunal began on Monday 15 June 2015, and will continue for a week.
NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans said: "There are numerous problems around how chaplaincy services are provisioned, but it is particularly troubling to see this apparently open discrimination applied to a job that is paid for by the taxpayer, supposedly to offer a service of spiritual care to all".
Canon Pemberton was blocked for promotion in 2014 and refused the documentation required to take a new job working as 'bereavement manager' for Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Despite the fact that NHS chaplains are funded by the taxpayer and not the Church, the Canon still required a licence from the diocese to move from his post into the new role. Owing to his marriage, the offer of the promotion was withdrawn.
When the offer was retracted in August 2014, Canon Permberton said: "I'm not going to bow out gracefully and take a low profile. I think this needs to be tested [legally] and I think in due course it probably will be somewhere."
He also commented that "there are … quite a lot of gay and lesbian Church of England chaplains working in the health service."
In March, new guidance published by NHS England required hospitals to consider the needs of non-religious patients by making sure they had access to appropriate pastoral care- and it defined chaplaincy in broad terms, encompassing "non-religious pastoral and spiritual care providers who provide care to patients, family and staff."
The National Secular Society and the Secular Medical Forum cautiously welcomed the guidance at the time, and the Society has now reiterated the call it made then for a "truly secular system of chaplaincy".
Mr Evans added: "If someone is qualified to be a chaplain, they should not be disqualified because they are in a same-sex marriage or because of their sexual orientation.
"These kinds of problems will exist however, where the provision of chaplaincy support is explicitly religious and 'multi-faith'. If religious organisations want to provide support for people in hospitals, they should be free to do so. But it is not right that a taxpayer-funded post is denied to someone by the Church, because the applicant is in a gay marriage."
The BBC reported that "the Church will argue that its doctrine and pastoral guidance make clear that those in holy orders cannot enter into a same-sex marriage, as the Church still sees marriage as solely between a man and a woman."
When proceedings began, Church lawyers said Pemberton had contradicted Church teaching.
Canon Pemberton earlier said that in spite of the consequences, it was the "right thing to do" to marry his now-husband. He still works as an NHS chaplain in Lincolnshire.
Secularists stand up for LGBT equality in Northern Ireland
Posted: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:54
The NSS has objected to proposed changes to Northern Ireland's equality laws which would allow businesses to refuse services to LGBT customers on the grounds of "strongly held religious convictions". The goods and services discrimination protection provisions in the Equality Act 2010 do not apply to Northern Ireland.
Responding to a consultation on the Northern Ireland Freedom of Conscience Amendment Bill, proposed by Democratic Unionist Party backbencher Paul Givan MLA, the NSS warned that proposed changes could lead to widespread discrimination against LGBT citizens without advancing protection for religion or belief.
The Bill proposed to amend the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 "to ensure that individuals are not put in a position where as a result of this legislation they are forced to choose between either acting in violation of their faith conscience, by affirming same-sex relationships, or losing their livelihood".
The Bill was prompted by a discrimination case against Ashers Baking Company, which refused to bake a cake with a message endorsing same-sex marriage. Gareth Lee had ordered the cake to mark International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. The Equality Commission (Northern Ireland) took legal action, arguing that the bakery had discriminated against the customer on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
Although the legal action is still ongoing, and will not reach court until March, Paul Givan argues that the case "highlighted the fact that some equality legislation, passed with the intention of protecting minorities, is having an adverse effect on those with religious belief when it comes to the provision of goods and services."
Mr Givan asserts that providing goods or services that could in some cases in "some sense" facilitate same-sex relationships and thus make a commercial service provider "complicit in affirming same-sex sexual relationships".
The NSS pointed out that when a business provides goods or services to a customer the relationship is commercial not personal and so it is not affirming any aspect of the customer's identity or characteristics.
The consultation document asserted that the draft Bill would not permit for example "an Evangelical grocer … to refuse to sell apples to a gay man". However, legal advice provided to the NSS by an eminent academic lawyer opined that the proposed legislation is so widely drafted that it could be used to justify discrimination in any service.
The relevant part of the advice reads: "The courts have allowed individuals to determine for themselves what their faith requires. If the printer knows that the cabinet maker will use profits from the sale of the cabinets to pay for a romantic weekend away with her partner or to pay for their wedding, he may conclude that printing the brochures does involve facilitating sinful conduct. The courts generally do not second guess individuals' assessments of what their faith required (e.g. the court accepted that Ms. Eweida felt she was required to wear the cross even though most Christians do not see it as a requirement) therefore it is not certain that the exemption can be restricted as the [consultation claims]."
The Rainbow Project, a Belfast based charity which promotes the health and well-being of LGBT people and their families in Northern Ireland, have been campaigning against the proposed bill and share these concerns. They wrote "it appears that Mr Givan and the other authors have not given any credence to the exceptionally wide remit this proposal may grant." They also pointed out a range of ways the proposal could impact negatively on LGB people's lives – beyond the aims the consultation claims the Bill seeks to allow.
In a statement on their website John O'Doherty director of the Rainbow Project said "The fact that this proposed legislation will only be used to discriminate against LGB people shows that it is not motivated by a desire to protect those of religious belief but by a hostility to LGB people and their hard-won rights. This is just updating 'No dogs, No blacks, No Irish' to include 'No gays."
The Bill would allow Catholic adoption agencies in Northern Ireland to discriminate in the choice of adoptive parents on grounds of religious conscience, we believe in conflict with a recent High Court judgement. More importantly, as the NSS has pointed out, this would reduce the pool of prospective parents, which would not be in the best interests of the children concerned.
The consultation will close at 5pm on Friday 27 February and the DUP First Minister Peter Robinson has indicated that the party will back Mr Givan's Bill. Sinn Fein have indicated they would seek to block the Bill in the Assembly. A party spokesperson told the Belfast Telegraph it was "opposed to any dilution of equality legislation".
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said "As currently worded, the Bill will enable discrimination way beyond the limited examples given by its proposers. It would legitimise discrimination already suffered by homosexuals making them second class citizens, for example by making lawful 'no gays' signs outside commercial premises. Investors and tourists are increasingly deterred by intolerance the message this legislation would send out loud and clear. The NI Assembly risks severe reputational and financial consequences if it licenses bigotry in this way."
