Humanist Marriage

Andrew Cooper Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), as well as the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), on securing the debate. Before I begin in earnest, I am proud to declare my interest as a member of Humanists UK and of the all-party parliamentary humanist group.

I would like to make a proposal to the Minister—one that does not need a ring, flowers or a dramatic moment on bended knee. My simple proposal is that we finally say yes to legalising humanist marriage in England and Wales. I understand the Government’s arguments, and I will focus my remarks on them, but before I get into the detail, I want to say that the fact that this was resolved in Scotland two decades ago, and could be, but has not been, resolved in England and Wales by way of a simple order, is indefensible. It demands urgent action.

I have heard the Government’s argument that they want to consider marriage law in the round, and they should certainly do that, but, thanks to the previous Government, humanist couples have already been waiting for 12 years and that has not happened. Why should they have to continue to wait, and why can they not have legal recognition of their marriages in the meantime?

While humanist couples have been waiting, many other piecemeal reforms have taken place. In 2021, the law was changed to allow civil marriages outdoors. The system of registering marriages became electronic. Mothers’ names have been added to marriage certificates. Opposite-sex civil partnerships have been introduced, along with new possibilities for conversions between marriage and civil partnership. No-fault divorce was introduced in 2022. The marriage age was raised to 18 in 2023. Weddings for whole-life prisoners were banned by this Government just last year.

While all that was taking place, more and more religious groups have been happily registering themselves to do marriages for the first time. Scientologists got the power to conduct marriage in 2014 following a Supreme Court case. The Order of St Leonard, a religious group founded in just 2009, has registered. The Goddess People of Avalon and the He Lives Bible Church, formed in 2000 and 1998, respectively, both registered. In other words, whole religions have come into existence and got the power to conduct marriage in almost the same time that humanist marriages have been under review.

Similarly, more religious groups have decided to perform same-sex marriages, most notably the Methodists in 2021. All the while, humanist celebrants have wanted to be able to perform legal same-sex marriages, but have been denied the right to do so. The previous Government argued that other religious and non-religious belief groups are arguing for legal marriage recognition, so it would be unfair to recognise humanists. However, that argument seems to be that two wrongs make a right. It is not clear who those groups even are. Muslims, for example, can already marry in mosques, and hundreds do so every year. Independent celebrants are an entirely different proposition, as we have heard, being profit-making alternatives to state registrars. It is also not clear how other religious or non-religious belief groups would be disadvantaged by humanists gaining recognition.

In the interest of time, I will wrap up. Scotland has already said, “I do.” Thousands of couples have legally married in beautiful, meaningful humanist ceremonies. England and Wales are still standing at the altar, checking their watch and waiting for the doors to open. I am not asking for sweeping reform. I am not asking the Minister to rethink everything. I am just asking for a simple answer to a simple question: will the Minister, at long last, do me the honour of making that order and recognising humanist marriages? There is no lawful impediment, just the chance to say, finally and unequivocally, “I do.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I start by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), and the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), for securing this important—and, may I say, really lovely —debate.

I should stress that the strength of feeling and frustration around legally recognising humanist weddings is very clear to me from this debate. It is important for me to acknowledge at the outset that the Government fully understand and recognise the significance of the issue to hon. Members and to humanists more widely. I am aware that a number of hon. Member from both Houses are campaigning on the issue, including those Members who secured the debate. I thank all hon. Members for taking part and expressing their deeply personal experiences and views. It has really contributed to this positive debate.

Andrew Copson, chief executive of Humanists UK, has been at the forefront of this campaign. He has met officials from my Department on a number of occasions, and it has been very helpful to understand his views on the issue as we take forward any potential reform. It is also only right that I acknowledge the frustrations that humanists have felt while campaigning for a change to the law. I appreciate that this change has been ongoing on for a long time. For many humanists, the inclusion of the order-making power within the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was hard fought for, and I know that it has been disappointing to them that this power has not been used to date.

I also do not think it would be right to have this debate without recognising the important contribution that humanists make to society. Humanists have often been at the forefront of the fight for social justice, campaigning for fairness, respect and equality for all. I join in celebrating the celebrants mentioned today for all the work they do to conduct weddings, funerals and important life events. The Government hugely acknowledge the tireless work of humanists, whether that is campaigning to abolish blasphemy laws, or Humanists UK raising the profile of illegal independent schools within Government.

I know that my noble Friend Lord Khan was very pleased to attend the World Humanists Day reception last year as the Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he spoke in 2021 to mark Humanists UK’s 125th anniversary, saying:

“Ever since its foundation as an ethical movement, humanists have contributed enormously to our party’s and our nation’s achievements…Humanists and Humanists UK have been at the forefront of the fight for social change: to decriminalise homosexuality, to end corporal punishment in schools, and to introduce free school meals.”

I could not have put it better myself. That quote captures the profound and lasting impact of Humanists UK.

We are having this debate because marriage is one of our most important institutions. At its best, it is a celebration of love, a symbol of enduring partnership and a deeply personal commitment. Marriage can provide many benefits, including emotional support, financial stability and legal protections. For those who choose to marry, it is a significant and meaningful decision—one that this Government are proud to promote and protect. Although the state rightly has a responsibility to ensure that marriage laws provide clarity and certainty around the legal status of marriage, we believe the conversation can and should go further. Our weddings law should always reflect the importance and meaning of marriage as an institution.

It is important to acknowledge the shape of our current law around weddings and explain how we have got to where we are, so let me begin by reflecting on the history of marriage law in England and Wales—unlike some wedding speeches, I promise to keep it brief and free of groan-inducing jokes.

Our weddings law has evolved gradually over centuries, with its core structure rooted in the 18th and 19th centuries. The foundations of weddings law were laid by the Clandestine Marriages Act 1753. The Act was designed to prevent secret or hasty marriages by requiring weddings to be undertaken by Anglican clergy in a parish church or public chapel. While the Act permitted Anglican weddings only, it explicitly exempted Jewish and Quaker marriage ceremonies. The Marriage Act 1836 marked a significant turning point, introducing civil marriage for the first time and allowing weddings to take place in registry offices and non-Anglican places of worship. It also brought in civil preliminaries, acknowledging the state’s interest in there being legal certainty about who is married.

The fundamental structure established in 1836 remains largely in place today, consolidated within the Marriage Act 1949. The model on which our law is based is broadly a buildings-based model, which means that most marriages are regulated according to the building in which they take place. There are exceptions to the system, because Jews and Quakers are not bound by this restriction and may marry in any location.

There is discrepancy in the law, because couples must choose between a civil or a religious wedding. If they opt for a religious wedding, the rules that apply will vary depending which religion the ceremony is conducted according to. Civil weddings, by contrast, must be held at a register office or at premises that have been officially approved for that purpose. Therefore, it is for historical reasons that humanists are currently unable to conduct legally binding weddings. There is no provision in our legislative framework for non-religious belief ceremonies to be legally binding, as a wedding must either be religious or civil.

As others have said, the Law Commission published a report in 2022 reviewing weddings law and concluded that it is

“inconsistent and complicated, inefficient, unfair, and needlessly restrictive”.

It found that the law does not work for couples of many different religions and beliefs, including humanists. The report was the result of extensive research and stakeholder engagement; the Law Commission received more than 1,500 responses to its consultation and engaging with more than 50 key stakeholders. It provided a number of instances where the law does not work for many couples, and one prominent example is that humanist couples are unable to have legally recognised humanist weddings in England and Wales.

The Law Commission also highlighted discrepancies affecting different religious groups. For instance, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus are required to marry in a registered place of worship, regardless of whether that place of worship is meaningful in a marriage context, and must use a prescribed form of words. In contrast, Jew and Quaker couples are permitted to marry in any location and without any prescribed wording. Another example identified was the challenges faced by mixed-faith couples, who are currently unable to have ceremonies that might reflect two different faiths.

To address the wide range of problems identified with the current law, the Law Commission made 57 recommendations for reform, underpinned by the proposal that current weddings law should be overhauled and a new legislative framework should be put in place. The Law Commission proposed a new framework to ensure that all groups are treated with fairness and consistency on how they get married.

I am keenly aware that humanists have expressed the view that the Law Commission’s recommendations do not provide the solution they are seeking. One of the main reasons for that is their preference for the Government to act quickly and use the order-making power, as several hon. Members have mentioned, which would allow for humanist weddings to take place within the current legislative framework.

[Andrew Cooper]

I understand the Minister’s point, but that does not accurately characterise my position. I am very happy for the Government to do a broader set of reforms, but I and others are arguing that we do not necessarily need to wait for that before acting on humanist marriage. The two things could happen in parallel. Would the Minister agree with that?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is important to ensure we do this properly. I am against any piecemeal reform here. If we are to do this, we need to do it properly and together, so that it is succinct. There are ways that that can be done, as I am about to come on to.

I acknowledge the calls made during this debate for the Government to take that step, and to take it quickly, and I will address them directly. Although it is true that using the order-making power would allow non-religious belief organisations to marry within the current framework of weddings law, it is important for us to take into account what the Law Commission has said about doing that. The Law Commission highlighted the complexities of the law in this area and concluded that exercising the order-making power is not, in its view, a viable option. As a responsible Government, we must take that view into account when considering the issue of weddings reform.