Wedding law in England and Wales is badly out of date.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
NSS warns against bill allowing religious exemptions to Northern Ireland’s equality laws
Posted: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 10:28
Democratic Unionist Party backbencher Paul Givan MLA (pictured above) has proposed a Private Members Bill that would create a religious exemption in Northern Ireland's equality legislation. The exemption would allow businesses to refuse services to customers on the grounds of "strongly held religious convictions". First Minister Peter Robinson has backed the Bill, saying "tolerance must include provisions to ensure that those with deeply held religious views are protected."
But the National Secular Society has warned the Bill could "legitimise victimisation of already persecuted minorities".
The Bill was prompted by the case of Ashers Baking Company, who refused to bake a cake with a message endorsing same-sex marriage. The Equality Commission subsequently pursued a civil case against the bakery. A petition launched by three DUP MPs accused the Commission of being "anti-democratic," discriminatory, and of abusing public funds in pursuing the company.
As a result of the Ashers Bakery case, Givan has now published a consultation paper on a "Northern Ireland Freedom of Conscience Bill." In the consultation, Givan writes that "some equality legislation, passed with the intention of protecting minorities, is having an adverse effect on those with religious belief." The 'Conscience Bill' would allow religious business owners to decline to serve customers, if the service would "promote or facilitate" a same-sex union.
Givan explains: "If a religious goods and services provider was required by the legislation to provide a service in a way that endorsed or promoted a same-sex union, or in some sense facilitated a same-sex sexual relationship, the provider would be made complicit in affirming same-sex sexual relationships. They would thus have to choose between acting in violation of their protected characteristic identity, surrendering their faith identity or ceasing service provision."
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, warned that the Bill could legitimise victimisation of already persecuted minorities. He said: "I hope it will be strenuously rejected by all those who recognise the contribution that equality laws and Human Rights have made to our becoming a more compassionate and just society."
The Rainbow Project, which campaigns for the "health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender people," has said that the Bill would actually be a "license to discriminate" against homosexuals.
The director of the Rainbow Project, John O'Doherty, added that "this proposed legislation will only be used to discriminate against LGB people" and 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."
O'Doherty said that the proposed Bill "is just updating 'No dogs, no blacks, no Irish' to include 'no gays'."
Givan claims that the 'Conscience Bill' would not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation alone. He writes that the Bill would "not mean that an Evangelical grocer would be able to refuse to sell apples to a gay man. The selling of apples would not involve the Evangelical grocer being required to endorse, promote or facilitate a same-sex sexual relationship in violation of his/her faith identity so there is no conflict."
However, Givan notes, the Bill would "mean that an Evangelical photographer would not be required by law to choose between either taking photos of a civil partnership ceremony, and hereby act in violation of their faith identity by endorsing, promoting and celebrating same-sex unions – or lose their livelihood."
The Rainbow Project argues that the amendment would mean business could legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. O'Doherty said that the religious exemption would mean that "restaurants could deny a same-sex couple a table as this could be facilitating same-sex relations. A mortgage provider could deny a mortgage to a same-sex couple as it would be facilitating same-sex relations. Hoteliers could deny a room to a same-sex couple as it would be facilitating same-sex relations."
"The proposed legislation would grant special rights for people of religious belief, and only those people, to deny access to goods, facilities and services on the grounds of sexual orientation."
An LGBT Labour Northern Ireland spokesman said that "the LGBT community are part of Northern Ireland" and that "Northern Ireland needs an Equality Act." The UK Equality Act 2010 does not apply to Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein said it was "opposed to any dilution of equality legislation."
The consultation on the proposed amendment can be found and completed here.
The Law Society withdraws controversial Sharia guidance and apologises
Posted: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:21
The sharia succession practice note has been withdrawn by the Law Society, following widespread criticism for gender discrimination.
The note had advised solicitors that "illegitimate and adopted children are not sharia heirs" and that "the male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir." The note also stated that "non-Muslims may not inherit at all" and that "a divorced spouse is no longer a sharia heir."
The note has now been removed from the Law Society website, and the society's president, Andrew Caplen has apologised for issuing the guidance. Caplen said that the note "was intended to support members to better serve their clients as far as is allowed by the law of England and Wales."
Caplen added that the Society had "reviewed the note in the light of criticism" and they had "withdrawn the note" and were "sorry".
The National Secular Society and the Lawyers Secular Society met with the Law Society in September and called for withdrawal of the guidance. The NSS objected to the practice note on the grounds that it encouraged discrimination, "legitimised sharia law" and was religious, rather than legal advice. The NSS also pressed home its concerns about the wider implications of this advice being issued, particularly for women.
The National Secular Society has welcomed the withdrawal of the guidance. Keith Porteous Wood, NSS executive director, said: "This is an important reversal for what had seemed to be the relentless march of sharia to becoming de facto British law. Until now, politicians and the legal establishment either encouraged this process or spinelessly recoiled from acknowledging what was happening. I congratulate the Law Society for heeding the objections we and others made. This is particularly good news for women who fare so badly under sharia, which is non-democratically determined, non-human rights compliant and discriminatory".
The Law Society thanked the NSS for raising concerns, and said that they hoped the NSS would "continue to engage with the Society and its work in the future".
Campaigners had previously called the guidance a "gross derogation of duty on both legal and moral grounds" and in an open letter published in September, campaign groups including Southall Black Sisters, One Law for All, Centre for Secular Space and LSESU told the Law Society that the note endorsed discrimination against minority women and children "on the grounds of their gender, marital status and religious backgrounds".
The open letter also drew attention to the fact that the advice note encouraged "legal and state welfare services to accommodate highly gender discriminatory religious that are being increasingly defined by religious fundamentalists in our society".
The campaigners had urged the Law Society to "adhere to the spirit of the equalities and human rights legislation and to its own equality policy by recognising that its main business lies in the promotion of a culture of human rights and norms based on principles of equality for all rather than on the promotion of 'sharia compliant' laws that discriminates against minority women and children in particular."
