Wedding law in England and Wales is badly out of date.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 2019 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 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
High Court rules Muslim ‘marriage’ void rather than non-marriage
Posted: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:28
A woman who had a Muslim 'marriage' ceremony but not a civil one is entitled to a decree of nullity which rules her marriage void, the High Court has ruled.
Last week Mr Justice Williams declared that Nasreen Akhter and Mohammed Shabaz Khan had a void marriage rather than a non-marriage.
He ruled that the couple had "a marriage entered into in disregard of certain requirements as to the formation of marriage". Under the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 this entitled Akhter to a decree of nullity, which rules a marriage void.
The decision means the provisions of civil divorce law will apply and Akhter will be entitled to protection under English law.
The couple had an Islamic wedding ceremony (a nikah) in 1998 but did not have a civil ceremony. They lived together as a married couple for 18 years and had four children, living in London, Birmingham and Dubai. In 2016 the 'wife' went to court to ask for a divorce.
The court found that Khan had promised to hold a civil ceremony shortly after the nikah but it had never taken place. Khan had disputed this during the case, arguing that neither party had intended to create legal remedies and therefore the marriage should be ruled non-existent.
The judge said the case was "not about whether an Islamic marriage ceremony should be treated as creating a valid marriage in English law".
"In fact, the main issue as it has emerged is almost diametrically the opposite of that question; namely, whether a nikah marriage ceremony creates an invalid or void marriage in English law."
During the case the attorney general submitted detailed submissions to the court, largely in favour of Khan.
Hazel Wright, a family law specialist at the London law firm Hunters, said the ruling had "given heart to many who otherwise suffer discrimination".
She said it was vital for Akhter that the "English divorce court rule in her favour" to give her rights and allow her to make financial claims.
A Guardian editorial called the ruling "a subtle and audacious piece of reasoning on a really important issue".
"It offers an elegant way to unpick a knot that binds far too many women today without violating anyone's religious conscience."
But Mohammed Amin, the chair of the Conservative Muslim Forum, voiced concern and said he expected the decision to be overturned on appeal.
"I suspect that more Muslim women will foolishly enter into nikah-only relationships in reliance upon this decision. However, that will mean that they are relying for divorce protection in English law upon a fact-based determination which could go either way if their relationship breaks down.
"In this case, there were many strong factual findings in favour of W [Akhter]. Many other cases will not be as strong, and litigation is often an expensive lottery."
Earlier this year a government review of sharia 'courts' recommended giving Islamic marriage the same legal standing as Christian or Jewish marriage earlier this year. The National Secular Society opposes this proposal.
The review also recommended government regulation of sharia 'courts'. The NSS welcomed the government's decision to dismiss this suggestion.
In June the NSS revealed deep inequalities in the current marriage system in England and Wales and wrote to the government to call for "wide-ranging reform of marriage law" to separate marriage from religion.
The NSS's recommendations were similar to those made by the Law Commission in a scoping paper in 2015. In response to the Akhter decision Frank Cranmer, writing for Law & Religion UK, called the government's decision to reject the commission's recommendations "a serious mistake".
The government's plans for piecemeal marriage reform "could just mean the addition of yet another strand to the cat's cradle of overlapping provisions on marriage in England and Wales", he added.
