Proposed Humanist Marriage Law Discriminatory
During this week’s House of Commons debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, a new clause, to bring humanist marriage into law, was proposed. Its primary provision was:-
Marriages according to usages of approved organisations
The Registrar General may by certificate approve organisations to solemnize marriages according to their usages provided that any such organisation:-
- is a registered charity principally concerned with advancing or practising the non-religious belief known as humanism;
- has been in continuous existence for five years; and
- appears to the Registrar General to be of good repute.
Under present law, a marriage is only valid if it is solemnized in the presence of either:-
- a state-appointed registrar; or
- an authorised person (normally a priest) appointed by a religious organisation.
No other person will do. This is religious privilege, enshrined in law – one law for religion, another for the rest; it is discrimination in favour of religious organisations, against others. Why shouldn’t any organisation be entitled to solemnize marriages?
The above proposal introduces the new concept of an “approved organisation” with power to appoint its own “registering officers”, in whose presence marriages can also be solemnized without the presence of registrars.
But an “approved organisation” must be a humanist organisation, by definition; no other kind will do. So the proposal does not abolish religious privilege; it merely enshrines in law humanist privilege as well – one law for humanism and religion, another for the rest; it is discrimination in favour of humanist and religious organisations, against others.
Attorney General Dominic Grieve saw straight through it:-
I have absolutely no doubt that the new clause, if passed, would render the Bill incompatible with the provisions of the European convention on human rights, because it identifies a group that is not a religious group and gives it a special status. The first thing that would happen is that all sorts of other secular groups would claim non-discrimination rights under article 14.
The new clause would make it impossible for the Minister to sign a certificate under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, enabling the Bill to proceed to the other place.
So, the proposal fell at the first hurdle, but it was misconceived anyway. It was supposed to obviate the need for couples to go through a dual marriage process: a civil ceremony before a registrar, followed by a ceremony before a humanist celebrant. It would enable them to be rolled into a single ceremony. But that is already possible. The only requirement is for registrars to be present; they need take no active role[1] but can sit passively while the humanist celebrant presides.
And that does not apply just to humanist marriages; any organisation can solemnize marriages in this way.
The irony of all this is that the proposed clause offends against principles of human rights and equality, the very things that the British Humanist Association, which was behind the drafting of it and for which the definition of “approved organisation” was tailor-made, campaigns for – but it didn’t even recognize the problem.
[1] Each of the persons contracting the marriage must make a prescribed declaration and use a prescribed form of words, but these do not need to be repeated after the registrar; they may be spoken from memory, or read off a card, or repeated after any other person – including a humanist celebrant.
