Wedding law in England and Wales is badly out of date.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
Lords’ wrecking amendments to equal marriage bill fail
Posted: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:48
This week saw the end of three days' worth of debate in the House of Lords over the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill whilst in its committee stage. The debate revealed a substantial number of wrecking amendments submitted by Lords, all largely a variation on just a few themes.
One of which was the insistence that we should distinguish between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. There was an amendment, tabled by Former Conservative Party chairman, Lord Mawhinney, which called for a heterosexual marriage to be lawfully described as "traditional marriage"; another, by Lord Carey, said that "nothing in the Act can take away the right of a man and woman to enter a traditional marriage"; one of Lord Hylton's amendments called for the bill to leave out the word "marriage" and replace it with "union"; and a final one by Lord Armstrong sought to clarify that "lawful marriage between a man and a woman is matrimony". These amendments were either withdrawn or failed.
There were also attempts to have the performance of same-sex marriage ceremonies to be subject to an opt-in mechanism rather than the default; for example, Lord Curry introduced an amendment requiring a congregation to Ballot in order to opt-in to performing same-sex ceremonies, whilst Lord Singh also proposed an amendment for opting-in to performing same-sex marriages, but this time for Sikh groups only. Baroness Cumberlege proposed, and then withdrew, an amendment giving registrars with a conscientious objection to same-sex marriage the right not to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.
All the while, there have been complaints from the Coalition for Marriage. Speaking to Pink News, Coalition for Marriage spokesperson Dr Sharon James made the surprising statement that Liberal Judaism, the Unitarians and the Quakers have been given "a disproportionate amount of time" in the debate for equal marriage at the expense of "mainstream Christian people". Given the number of amendments, all grounded within a traditional Christian perspective, attempting to distinguish between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage by emphasising notions of 'tradition' and 'matrimony', Dr James's assertion could be understood as somewhat disingenuous.
During the Lords' debate, there was also concern expressed for teachers. Despite the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, dismissing the notion that teachers opposed to same-sex marriage would be in danger of losing their jobs, Lord Dear looked to entrench an amendment that stated no teacher should be required to endorse same-sex marriage if that teacher has a conscientious objection to it.
Last week, Equalities Minister, Maria Miller revealed that the government will be proposing that the Public Order Act 1986 be amended so as to explicitly protect critics of same-sex marriage. The Public Order Act includes a number of clauses prohibiting the provocation of hatred or violence, and Ms Miller's amendment seeks to clarify that criticism of same-sex marriage does not constitute such an offence; it states, that "any discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred". This amendment is seen as an attempt to appease those equal marriage opponents who had previously voiced fears that the passing of the bill would lead to their being prosecuted.
According to the findings of an international poll conducted by Ipsos MORI and released today, 55% of people in the UK support equal marriage.
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is due to go to report stage on the 8 July and have its third reading on the 15 July.
Attempts to protect women’s rights in Afghanistan have been blocked by clerics in the parliament
Posted: Tue, 21 May 2013 15:24
The new laws proposed a minimum marriage age for girls, and women not being prosecuted for rapes committed against them.
Khalil Ahmad Shaheedzada, a conservative lawmaker for the Herat province, said parliament withdrew the legislation because of opposition from religious parties that considered the law un-Islamic. "Whatever is against Islamic law, we don't even need to speak about it," Shaheedzada said.
Using executive authority, President Hamid Karzai had created the Law on Elimination of Violence Against Women in 2009. But this needed to be ratified by parliament.
The law would have criminalised domestic violence and protected victims from themselves facing criminal charges after men had raped them. It would also have banned "baad," which allows for the commercial exchange of women to settle disputes.
Religious representatives objected to more than half a dozen parts of the legislation, including a minimum marriage age of 16 for girls and supporting shelters for women whose husbands had abused them.
Shaheedzada claimed that the law might encourage promiscuity and reflected values not applicable in Afghanistan.
"Even now in Afghanistan, women are running from their husbands. Girls are running from home," Shaheedzada said. "Such laws give them these ideas."
Fawzia Kofi, a lawmaker and women's rights activist (recently honoured by Newsweek's online publication The Daily Beast as one of the "150 Women Who Shake the World"), brought the legislation up for a vote to prevent a future president from reversing it under pressure from religious groups.
Saying that the law does not represent fundamental tenants of Sharia Law and is only coming from 'the West', some of the most conservative members of the Parliament echoed strong conservative religious policies that are still upheld today by many of Afghanistan's rural tribal community leaders.
"It is wrong that a woman and man cannot marry off their child until she is 16" said Obaidullah Barekzai, a member from southeast Uruzgan province, where female literacy rates are among the lowest in the country.
An Afghan man must be at least 18 years old to marry.
Barekzai argued against all age limits for women, citing historical figure Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq, a close companion of the Prophet Muhammad, who married off his daughter at age seven.
At least eight other legislators, mostly from the Ulema Council, a government-appointed body of clerics, joined him in decrying the law as un-Islamic. Abdul Sattar Khawasi, member for Kapisa province, called women's shelters "morally corrupt". Justice Minister Habibullah Ghaleb last year dismissed them as houses of "prostitution and immorality", provoking fierce condemnation from women's groups.
"Unfortunately, there were some conservative elements who are opposing this law," said Fawzia Kofi, who is running in next year's presidential election. "What I am disappointed at is because there were also women who were opposing this law."
More than 60 women serve in Afghanistan's 352-member bicameral National Assembly, though most do so thanks to constitutional provisions reserving certain seats for women.
Before the arrival of NATO troops twelve years ago, the Taliban had banned women from working and attending school - even leaving home without a male relative - and forced them to wear head-to-toe burqas under penalty of execution for even minor offences.
See also: Number of Afghan women fleeing abuse soars and Surge in number of Afghan women in jail
