More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
A High Court judge said it is "discrimination" not to legally recognise humanist weddings in the same way as religious ceremonies, but stopped short of saying the government is acting illegally.
Victoria Hosegood and Charli Janeway, from Tonbridge, were one of six couples who launched a legal fight last month in a bid to get humanist weddings the same weight in law as religious matrimonies.
Under current law, couples who wish to have a humanist ceremony in England and Wales must either attend a second civil ceremony at a registry office, or accept that their marriage is not acknowledged by law.
Despite the restrictions, legal recognition of humanist ceremonies has been accepted by both Scotland and Northern Ireland.
On Friday judge Mrs Justice Eady DBE ruled that the failure to give legal recognition humanist marriages means that "the present law gives rise to…discrimination".
She also ruled that the Secretary of State for Justice "cannot…simply sit on his hands" and do nothing about the difference in the way non-religious marriages are treated.
However, the judge refused to formally declare the government had acted unlawfully because a review is currently being carried out by the Law Commission.
In the judgement she added: "Although I may deprecate the delay that has occurred since 2015, I cannot ignore the fact that there is currently an on-going review of the law of marriage in this country."
As part of their landmark challenge, the couples were seeking a declaration that the UK government’s refusal to give legal recognition to humanist marriages in England and Wales was a breach of their human rights.
Speaking after the ruling, Victoria and Charli said: "We are disappointed by the result of the judgement and the fact that we still do not have the right to be legally married by our humanist celebrant.
"Despite this, we are very pleased that the judge has clearly acknowledged that the lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages is discrimination and we remain hopeful that this recognition will be reflected in a change to the marriage laws.
"We will be keeping everything crossed that this change will occur before our wedding next year."
During the court hearing, the government argued that the couples had no right to humanist marriages, on the basis that humanist marriages are not sufficiently connected to humanism to merit legal protection.
At the same time, they also argued that English law already provides for humanist marriages by way of civil marriage.
But in her decision the judge rejected these arguments, saying that there is an intimate link between couples’ beliefs and their choice of a humanist ceremony, reasoning.
Justice Eady added: "In particular, in the way in which couples prepare for their wedding with their celebrant, in the statements made during the ceremony and in the emphasis on individual freedom of choice."
The judge said that attention on the issue must now turn to the government’s promised review of marriage law to address this discrimination.
"It is at least now not a matter of if humanist marriages will be legally recognised but when."
The government said in court that a consultation would be published in early September by the Law Commission.
Felicity Harvest is a humanist celebrant, someone who marries couples in a humanist ceremony.
She said: "It's all about fairness. If you're religious, you can get married in a place that represents your religion.
"If you're someone who wants a humanist wedding, you can have your humanist wedding but you also have to go to a registry office, and it can make it really uncomfortable, not to mention expensive."
Humanists UK welcomed the court identifying the failure to provide legal recognition of humanist marriages, but was disappointed at the government being given more time to correct the problem.
Andrew Copson, Humanists UK chief executive, said: "Thanks to this judgment, it is at least now not a matter of if humanist marriages will be legally recognised but when, and we await the government’s response to the judgement and their proposals to remedy the discrimination that has been identified by the court."
