In 2022, the Law Commission unveiled recommendations to reform weddings law to create a ‘fairer system’ that would give couples more choice of where and how their wedding takes place.
For historical reasons, the current law restricts how couples are permitted to celebrate and fails to meet the needs of the diverse society of England and Wales, it said.
Three years on, the government has signalled that it is in no rush. Responding this month to the latest in a long line of written parliamentary questions on wedding reform, justice minister Alex Davies-Jones MP said marriage is ‘one of the most important institutions’, so it was right that the government ‘take the time’ to consider the commission’s report before setting out its position.
But given the commission said back in 2015 that the law was ‘out of date, complex and uncertain’, how much more time is needed for further reflection?
At present, couples must choose between a civil or religious wedding, with religious weddings further divided into different types. However, incremental changes have resulted in a law ‘that is inconsistent and complicated, inefficient, unfair, and needlessly restrictive’, the commission said.
The commission recommended moving from a system based on regulation of the building in which the ceremony takes place, to one based on regulation of the officiant responsible for the ceremony. This would pave the way for weddings to take place in a wider range of locations – though the location would need to be agreed by the officiant, who would be responsible for considering guest safety and the dignity of the location.
In its response to the consultation, the Law Society said repealing the existing location requirements would allow weddings to be simpler and more affordable. Allowing couples to get married in private homes, for example, would make weddings more accessible.
Vanessa Gardiner, a partner in the family team at RWK Goodman, told the Gazette: ‘I have personal experience of a family member who wanted to marry her same-sex partner in the garden of her family home in the UK – a garden with a special corner dedicated to the memory of her late father – surrounded by family and friends who could support their union.
‘But the legal restrictions and procedural hurdles made it so difficult that the couple (both Australian citizens) chose instead to marry in their own garden in Australia, in front of a celebrant. The lack of convenience and accessibility ultimately prevented them from marrying in the UK.’
‘I have seen the injustice which arises when someone goes through a ceremony of marriage, conducts life as a married couple… only to find the ceremony was conducted in a location which was not licensed… and the parties are, in fact, not married’
Beverley Morris, a partner in the family team at HCR Law, said the validation of wedding ceremonies should be a particular focus. ‘I have seen the injustice which arises when someone goes through a ceremony of marriage, conducts life as a married couple, is referred to as a spouse throughout the entirety of the relationship only to find the ceremony was conducted in a location which was not licensed to conduct the ceremony and the parties are, in fact, not married. This can sometimes be as a result of a deliberate attempt by one party to avoid the financial consequences of marriage. It has a devastating effect psychologically and [results in] significant economic prejudice.’
For Vanessa Friend, head of family at Hodge Jones & Allen, reform cannot come soon enough ‘as the current rules are unnecessarily prescriptive and do not take account of modern approaches to marriage and weddings’. However, ‘it will still be important that people understand the legal implications of getting married, particularly if the setting is less formal than it has been historically’.
Christopher Finch, a partner in the family team at HCR Law, said how and where couples have their ceremony ‘is nowhere near as important as knowing the legal implications of marriage, and the financial ties and obligations that marriage creates’.
Finch pointed out that the government already has plenty to chew on, such as the commission’s recent report on financial remedies on divorce. ‘Weddings can be expensive (and perhaps a little convoluted as a result of our antiquated laws), but divorce and financial separation can be even more expensive if couples go into marriage without a full appreciation of what might happen if they later separate,’ Finch said.
Will the government say ‘I do’ to wedding reform? We will find out ‘in the coming months’.
