Faculty Office response to Government consultation on changes to marriage law

The Faculty Office has responded to the Ministry of Justice consultation “Tying the Knot: Reforming weddings law in England and Wales” (July 2026).

In our response which you can read HERE we agree with the position of the Ministry of Justice on leaving Anglican marriage preliminaries intact or for the Church of England or Church in Wales to make modification as those churches consider appropriate. We are glad that the Ministry of Justice are wanting to put in place regulation of the proposed new officiant based (rather than buildings based) weddings system, and that they have proposed ways in which the dignity of the marriage service can be safeguarded. One of our main concerns in our response to the Law Commission’s proposals was that weddings would become more prone to lack of seriousness and gimmickry if there was to be a move to deregulation.

In our response we articulate three principal points:

First, while we agree that steps should be taken to ensure that the marriage service be dignified, there needs to be a formal understanding of what the marriage is and a requirement that the marriage service not be inconsistent with that formal understanding. The content of the marriage ceremony (ie the words on the page) is as important, if not more important, than the way it is delivered. We suggest some minimum content in our response to the consultation by way of prescribed word which set out what marriage is, that it is intended to be a lifelong union of two people, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health.

Second, that if non-religious groups are able to conduct their own weddings that should be through nominating an authorised officiant to perform a “neutral” ie non-ideological ceremony, not as an extension of their own worldview or political ideology. The concept that non-religious groups will each have their own understanding and ideology of marriage which they would propagate as registrars acting with the authority of the State would be against public policy. 

Third, that to authorise large numbers of independent celebrants brings with it serious risks of fragmentation, and importing harmful ideologies. It could also lead to a multiplication in mistakes and resulting problems for couples whose marriages could then be impugned. We therefore submit that the independent celebrants do not become authorised officiants.