Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Weddings: Humanist Celebrants

Tuesday 3 June 2025 · 1 question

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 1 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Sin Berry asked a question about enabling humanist marriages in the UK Parliament.
  • The Minister responded that they are considering the High Court ruling of 2020 regarding humanist marriages.
  • The Minister expressed caution about introducing further differential treatment in marriage law through legislation.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Siân Berry Green Brighton Pavilion
Context

Humanists have been campaigning to conduct legally binding weddings. A High Court ruling in 2020 found that the current law is discriminatory against humanist celebrants.

Question

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I understand that Ministers are focused on wider marriage reform, but there is a much quicker and simpler process by which to enable humanist marriages, which is to act on the High Court ruling of 2020 that the current law is discriminatory. Will Ministers therefore lay an order so that humanist couples and celebrants can have legal recognition for their ceremonies in line with their beliefs, the same as their religious counterparts?

Answer from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)

No one will be more excited to don a hat for the first legally binding humanist wedding than me. However, we must consider whether legislating to provide for humanist marriage would introduce further differential treatment in this complex area of law. That is why we need to make sure that we take the time to get this right. It would also not address other issues in marriage law that affect all groups. As a responsible Government, we have to consider this before we set out our position.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The exact request to lay an order based on the 2020 High Court ruling was avoided.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)