Muslim wives legally invisible

I got married in a Catholic Church so I was just going by what we had to do. And everyone Catholic wedding I’ve been to involved a separate registrar. Ours was lovely as it goes!

Ah thank you - for some reason I thought rabbis were automatically registered too!

Perhaps it's regionally specific, but I have never been to a single Catholic wedding where the priest was also the legal celebrant. There's always been a separate legal registrar present.

Priests are often pretty thinly spread these days, I can see how it would be attractive to just stick to the essential parts of the role and contract out what someone else can do.

That's more common in Pakistan culture.

It does happen but it shouldn't be done one after the other, where every marriage in each generation are cousins.
One instance I know, my friend and her husband are cousins, his parents are cousins and her parents are cousins too, and married to each to each other. Their neighbours are also Pakistani and her husband is her cousin. And she told me her sister in law is also her cousin. It happens a lot there but when its constant that's when the birth defects and disabilitys occur.

PS

My very good friend had a Nikah only marriage - it worked well for her and only she came to the marriage with any property, and there were no children. She was able to end the marriage quickly and easily as a result.

My exh has a Christian only marriage (done in another country) which isn’t registered here. They live in his house but his partner has separate investments etc (I believe) to protect herself.

That’s a much bigger can of worms around why it’s women who end up vulnerable like that. Although there are also threads about cocklodgers who similarly have no rights - just gullible women accommodating them! 😂

It's a mixture. There have absolutely been posts from people who thought they had more rights than they did.

Whether or not one can legislate for stupid is a different point. I'm personally very reticent to change a law that would interfere with some people's rights (for example the right to cohabit without the legal status of marriage, to engage in a religious ritual without needing to involve the state) to try and help a different group, when options to try and educate instead exist.

It’s true catholic marriages aren’t automatically registered but catholic priests are very commonly authorised celebrants, the way rabbis are. Only CofE priests have authorisation “with the job”

Yes I agree with you

There is also an element of being vulnerable, weak or poor and having little choice in life.

When you’re in the owned house having the bills paid it’s easy to not think about having it all taken away. It doesn’t mean these women didn’t understand they had few legal rights, there are all sort of more likely emotion based explanations IMO.

Not shocked but I do thing there should be some changes around religious only marriages.

It’s only CofE and Jewish marriages that are automatically registered I think - Catholic marriages aren’t automatically registered, you have to have a registrar there too. But in practice everyone does.

Some people, I guess, might want a religious only marriage for a good reason, like protecting the children of an earlier marriage (although of course they could just make a will very quickly).

I’m sure it is possible to legislate to make it the presumption at least that religious marriages will be legally registered- but the exact terms of that would be for someone with more expertise!

Those threads aren’t from people who mistakenly thought they had married rights - they’re from women who stupidly didn’t think it mattered. There is already education around marriage rights. Again, you can’t legislate for stupid.

Wanting to prohibit a religious ceremony does not stand out as a good idea to me.
If people really don’t understand that a marriage has to be registered to be legal, then education is the key - not banning things.

Sadly, the culture around Islam is severely misogynistic. Muslim mothers and fathers need to do more to protect their daughters and understand the precarious space they are allowing their child to enter without a legal thread to their marriage. Sadly, many won’t, and I don’t think it’s on the state to enforce that. Only to educate.

I don't think people really use the term common law spouse any more, but the ignorance ahout the legal position of cohabitants is absolutely still a thing. There have been sooooo many threads on here from women who sleepwalked into unprotected positions, who either didn't know or didn't think it mattered that they were legally in quite a different position from spouses, then got an unpleasant dose of reality when the relationship ended.

Agreed- I think the reasonable solution seems to be that people who perform religious ceremonies are legally obliged to tell they people they are marrying that it’s not legally binding.

But on the other side it would prevent me having a pagan ceremony in my garden at entirely my own choice?

I wouldn’t recognise this version in law, nor legislate that they had to do a civil version. Maybe some education on what marriage means here legally.

I might be sheltered but I have never heard of anyone thinking common law marriage is a real thing. It was something women who wanted to be married to their long term partners used to say back in the 80s to cover the embarrassment. In 2025?!? I haven’t even heard anyone say the words for about 20 years.

I think education has absolutely worked on that one.

If they can only do the religious marriage ceremony once already legally married and there a penalties for a celebrant performing a marriage ceremony without the correct legal recognition then that protects women.

The problem with the current set up in the UK is that a man who holds more wealth and power can get the respectability of a legal marriage without granting his wife the protection of a legal marriage.

Many of these women won't know that they aren't legally married or will believe that the religious part is the important part. They won't have the bargaining power to insist and then they will suffer if their husband abandons them or dies.

But because it doesn’t appear effective in France Germany Belgium it doesn’t seem worthwhile changing the law for here?

But the law is pointless, surely? Unless you’re suggesting people should be thrown into prison for not having a civil wedding?!

I don’t think we should be legislating for stupidity. Sorry.

Lots of marriages aren't recognised in UK law, handfastings aren't.

The same reason that many women think a common law marriage is valid.
And then realise that 20 years living with a man and bringing up his kids means nothing without a piece of paper.