The mistakes of marriage reform

In 1995, Fred Bartosch married Patrick Swayze. Fred was my mother. Later that same year, she married a man with the middle name Caesar IIV. Yet she herself remained wedded to my dad from the age of 17 until her death at 62. She spent her career in the registration service, recording births and deaths and conducting wedding ceremonies. When couples came to marry, she made sure they understood that marriage is not just a declaration of love, but a legal contract, entered into freely and carrying rights and responsibilities. And on the rare occasions when something seemed amiss, she asked the difficult questions. It is precisely that safeguarding principle the Government now proposes to weaken in its consultation, Tying the Knot: Reforming Weddings Law in England and Wales. 

The consultation begins with a foreword from David Lammy, written in the syrupy idiom of the life coach rather than the legislator: “Every couple deserves to start their journey together with an unforgettable day that reflects their beliefs, their personalities and the lives they plan to build together.” Yuck.

Some of the problems identified are laughably exaggerated, such as the idea that couples are abandoning marriage because wedding venues are expensive. Others are far more sinister. Beneath the veil of religious tolerance sits a proposal that would, for the first time, make a woman’s own voice legally unnecessary at her wedding. 

The consultation argues that “dignity is to some extent subjective” and that marriage ceremonies should reflect different cultural and religious traditions. It suggests that requiring spoken consent is, for some faiths, “an imposition” that conflicts with established practice.

Its answer is to redefine consent itself. Rather than insisting that both parties verbally agree to the marriage, the Government proposes that consent may instead be expressed “through actions”, so long as the officiant and witnesses “share an understanding” of what those actions mean.

The Family Education Trust highlights these and other flaws. A briefing from the charity explains a Muslim girl whose marriage has been arranged by her family could, in principle, remain veiled and silent throughout a ceremony held in her family home, yet leave it legally married because the officiant and witnesses interpreted her gestures as consent.

The Government itself accepts that allowing weddings in private homes “could make it harder to identify forced, predatory, sham marriages or wider abuse”. 

The consultation acknowledges that six in ten women married in Islamic ceremonies in Britain have no legal marriage at all. When those relationships collapse, it is overwhelmingly women who discover they have no matrimonial rights, no financial remedies and none of the legal protections marriage is supposed to confer. Their children pay the price too.

It is tempting to conclude that women’s legal protections become negotiable whenever they collide with religious sensitivities

The answer has been sitting on ministers’ desks for years. In 2018, the Home Office’s independent review recommended requiring every religious marriage to be legally registered, with a clear legal duty on celebrants to ensure it happened. The Casey Review echoed that conclusion after estimating there could be as many as 100,000 unregistered Islamic marriages in England. Yet faced with the opportunity to strengthen women’s rights, particularly those of women in Muslim households, the Government has chosen instead to dilute the safeguards around legal consent while leaving the underlying injustice intact.

It is tempting to conclude that women’s legal protections become negotiable whenever they collide with religious sensitivities. But marriage is not just a matter of personal fulfilment, faith or community. It is the point at which a private relationship becomes a public legal contract — one that must be entered into freely, knowingly and publicly by both parties.

The Government’s duty is not to bend that contract to accommodate competing and often diametrically opposed beliefs, but to make sure that every citizen enters it with the same rights, the same responsibilities and the same protections. If some religious communities or individuals reject those principles, it is those communities or individuals that need updating, not the law.

The consultation closes on 1 September. As Fred might’ve said, speak now by completing it, or forever hold your peace.