Marriage reform or marriage risk?

Last month, the Ministry of Justice announced that it would be looking to significantly reform the laws specifying where and how people can get married for it to be a valid legally binding marriage. The government says it will be a “boost to the economy” and means “marriage law reflects modern Britain”.

The proposed changes will allow weddings to take place in a wider variety of locations, including outdoor venues and more non-traditional settings, by shifting the regulation from the wedding buildings onto the officiants holding them and providing couples with greater flexibility and choice over their wedding venue. Importantly, the proposed changes would mean that the law would allow Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu weddings to be legally binding ceremonies, as well as allowing non-religious ceremonies, such as Humanist weddings (that are already recognised in Wales and Scotland), to be legally binding.

While the changes do reflect a multi-cultural Britain, a much welcome change to a current system that only recognises Christian, Jewish and Quaker religious ceremonies (although other religious buildings could be used if registered) as legally binding marriages, the expansion of the locations of legally enforceable weddings raises a number of concerns and queries, that will need to be considered if these proposals are to become law.

Risks

The regulation over what constitutes a valid marriage, particularly over the location, is there in part to protect individuals from sham weddings, forced marriage, or other forms of exploitation. By relaxing these rules, will there be a corresponding increase in the instances of exploitation through marriage? Whilst the proposed reform has been sold as a boost to growth, the Government’s first obligation is to the people it governs, which they may be placing at further risk by relaxing these rules. 

Not only does it leave the door open for further exploitation of individuals, but with serious tax shake ups from the current Government, with more to come on the not-so-distant horizon, many people are already considering using the tax breaks afforded by marriage to their financial advantage. The key tax break for married couples is, undoubtedly, the exemption to inheritance tax for transfers between spouses. Therefore, it may be that the reforms have the unintended outcome of encouraging “marriages of convenience”, so that friends, colleagues or even distant cousins consider “tying the knot” to avoid a massive inheritance tax bill. If you are relaxing the rules for a legally binding marriage, are you incentivising people to explore this as an option? So, whilst the reforms are not only opening the door to exploiting individuals, but are you also exploiting the concept of a marriage altogether? The same argument applies for weddings undertaken for immigration purposes.  

As with any legislative overhaul, there will inevitably be a period of miscomprehension or misapplication of the new law. If the reforms were implemented, the already stretched family courts (that the