Cross-party peers again urge legal recognition of humanist marriages

Peers from Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, crossbenchers, and the bishops’ bench formed a united front calling on the Government to lay the order to legally recognise humanist marriages in an oral question asked by Baroness Thornton. Humanists UK welcomed the further calls for reform in the upper chamber, which followed a recent Westminster Hall debate in the House of Commons and urged the Government to act.

This is the latest in a series of oral questions in the Lords posed by Baroness Thornton on the topic following questions in October and December last year, and again in February. At the same time, parliamentarians have asked questions in the Commons as well as held a Westminster Hall debate attended by a large number of MPs who shared how the lack of legal recognition had affected them and called for reform.

Cross-party effort

Labour peer Baroness Thornton, member of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG), asked what progress has been made to enable legal recognition of humanist weddings, and later pressed the Government to issue a timeframe for action. Responding, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede said that the Government is considering wholesale marriage reform and that the Government is working on this issue ‘at pace’.

Conservative peer Lord Young of Cookham quoted the Labour Minister from his opposition days and asked:

‘Has the Minister refreshed his memory as to what he said on this subject on 25 April 2022 when he was in opposition? This is what he said: “My Lords, the Liberal Democrats clearly support this change; the Labour Party supports this change; the Government in Wales support this change; the Government in Scotland support this change… so why are the Government waiting for the Law Commission’s report?”’

He asked Lord Ponsonby, ‘Can he answer his own question?’

This is in relation to the fact that Labour supported legal recognition of humanist marriages by Order since 2014 while in opposition. But now in power, the Labour Government has said it needs more time to set out a position and consider the measure in light of the Law Commission review. The Minister replied that ‘the answer is that it is a very complex question’.

Crossbench peer Baroness Meacher raised the fact that the Government could consider humanist marriages alone instead of alongside wholesale marriage reform and asked the Minister: 

‘My Lords, the Minister refers to this as a “complex question”. The fact is that Ministers may make this into a complex question by extending it beyond the simple question: should humanist marriages be legalised? If one sticks to that simple question, it is not complex and it could be agreed now, today.’

Labour peer Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, who was instrumental in securing the Government to have the power to grant legal recognition to humanist marriages in 2013 during the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, asked:

‘My Lords, I understand that reforming marriage laws is a complex business, but in terms of removing discrimination against humanists who wish to get married, as their religious counterparts do, why do the Government not lay an order, just as an interim measure, which would enable humanists to marry?’

The Lord Bishop of Guildford intervened to indicate the Church of England supported encouraging ‘more people to marry wherever, provided that the ceremony reflects the seriousness of the commitment being entered into and the love that lies at its core.’ He asked ‘To that end, does the Minister agree that if adjustments were to be made to our current premises-based system to enable legal humanist marriages, the door should not be opened so wide that it brings in a free market in commercial celebrants that will cheapen and devalue what is such a vital and foundational institution?’

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Burt, Vice-Chair of the APPHG, pointed out that the lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages is an LGBT issue, as LGBT people are significantly more likely to identify as non-religious. The Minister replied that ‘I appreciate the frustration, and I appreciate that this disproportionately affects the gay community’ but repeated the Government’s approach of wholesale reform.

Finally crossbench peer Lord Birt, another APPHG member, listed all the other countries which have legally recognised humanist marriages including ‘Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada’ and asked what could be lost by the Government in laying the Order. In response, the Minister echoed that the Government is ‘making haste’ in considering the Law Commission review’s recommendations on marriage and that an announcement will be forthcoming.

Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson commented:

‘This exchange in Parliament shows the latest in a political groundswell of support from parliamentarians speaking out for the Government to act to legally recognise humanist marriage without delay. This is not controversial: humanist couples are asking for the same right to marry in line with our beliefs as our religious counterparts. Making this happen is quick and easy to achieve via Order, and we applaud peers for speaking up in support of this much-needed reform.

‘The Government shouldn’t keep asking humanists to wait. Every day,  humanist couples are being forced into heart-wrenching decisions on whether they should cross the border to be legally wed in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or to have to hold two marriage ceremonies in England and Wales. It is not fair.

‘The Government acquired the power to grant legal recognition to humanist marriages in 2013, and the High Court warned the Government to act to remedy the discrimination faced by humanists in 2020. We call on the Government to act.’

---