Wedding law in England and Wales is badly out of date.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
Washington Supreme Court: Religious beliefs no excuse for a business to discriminate
Posted: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:47
The Supreme Court of the state of Washington has unanimously ruled that a florist cannot discriminate against same-sex couples, in a ruling welcomed by American secularists.
Two men sued a florists, Arlene's Flowers, after the proprietor said providing flowers for a same-sex wedding would be contrary to her religious beliefs.
They had been long-term customers of the florists, and Barronelle Stutzman, the owner and operator, knew that they were gay and in a long-term relationship.
Stutzman was described by the court as "an active member of the Southern Baptist church."
It was "uncontested" by the Supreme Court "that her sincerely held religious beliefs include a belief that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman."
She argued that anti-discrimination laws did not apply to her behaviour, and that if they did the statutes "violate her state and federal constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise, and free association."
Stutzman said that she would unable to do the flowers for the couples' wedding because of her "relationship with Jesus Christ".
One of the men, Curt Freed, said he was "very hurt and upset" following Stutzman's refusal and "deeply offended" that the couples' business was "no longer good business" just because his "loved one [did not fit] within [Stutzman's] personal beliefs."
Following media attention about the story and fearing protestors from groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church the couple abandoned plans for a ceremony with a hundred or more guests and had a much smaller ceremony at the their home with just 11 people in attendance.
Stutzman said this was the only occasion she had ever refused to serve a customer. Following this, she decided on an "unwritten policy" that the florists would not accept requests for same-sex wedding ceremonies. This was due to her conviction that "biblically marriage is between a man and a woman".
The court noted that she had served gay and lesbian customers for other orders unrelated to same-sex marriages.
The court summarised her view as believing "that participating, or allowing any employee of her store to participate, in a same-sex wedding by providing custom floral arrangements and related customer service is tantamount to endorsing marriage equality for same-sex couples."
She maintained that she would sell flowers in bulk or sell "raw materials" but that creating floral arrangements would be crossing over a line where her "imagination and artistic skill" would be used to "intimately participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony".
The court "emphatically" rejected her argument that providing the couple with alternative florists meant that no harm was done, and endorsed the couple's argument that the case "is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches."
The court concluded: "As every other court to address the question has concluded, public accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace."
Carving out a "patchwork of exceptions for ostensibly justified discrimination" would mean that purpose was "fatally undermined".
The ruling was welcomed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who commented: "Religious freedom is a fundamental American value. It guarantees us the freedom to believe, or not, as we see fit. It does not, however, grant us a right to use religion as an excuse to ignore laws that prohibit discrimination."
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."
