Marry First Legally

[Hhhwgroadk]

Why do couples marry religiously first when the only protection is granted by a legal ceremony?

On MN there are women who have been married in a religious setting only and the relationship breaks down due to unfaithfulness, abuse etc and they are left with nothing. Surely the best way of protecting yourself is by marrying FIRST legally and then religiously? If this isn't possible to do on the same day then insist it is done days before.

What reason is given for this not happening?

Church wedding are legal marriages. What religious weddings are you talking about?

I thought most couples taking this route did have the legal ceremony first? That's certainly been the case with most threads I've read about them on here.

It depends on the country and the religion. In the UK, a Church of England wedding is legal, as are other Christian denominations (although I think you have to arrange for the Registrar to be present, if not CofE). I'm not sure about other faiths, although I expect someone else will be able to confirm.

Are you talking about Nikah?

Yes I am.

Do Jewish and Hindu marriage ceremonies have the legal part included? I am Catholic and when we married in 1971 we had to have a Registrar marry us in the background as well. So really it is regarding other Faiths other than CofE.

Jewish yes, Hindu no. Have a look at Vardags for an outline of what is and is not legally recognised in terms of wedding ceremonies in the UK (they did my ex's divorce so they definitely know what they are talking about!)

https://vardags.com/law-guide/legal-marriage-requirements/religious-ceremonies-sikh-muslim-hindu

Jewish marriages are legal marriages in the UK. There are more complex rules with other religions. For example, a Muslim wedding abroad is legal, but not if conducted in the UK.

I’m Jewish, but we had a humanist wedding, which was not considered legal marriage, despite giving notice and marrying in a registered building (no idea if it would be now though). We had our legal marriage a few hours before the actual wedding ceremony in a side room. Basically, had breakfast, went signed all the paperwork, got married, then went and got dressed for our real wedding that afternoon.

I've been to a Sikh wedding in the gurdwara where a Registrar was present, so no need for a civil wedding as well.

For religious Muslims, the nikkah is the marriage. Those who understand and want the legal protections of civil marriage will also opt for a legal civil ceremony; but some actively choose not to as they don’t want to be guided by civil law because they don’t want or believe in its impact on their lives (they believe Shariah is the true law), and unfortunately, women in traditional communities tend to have very little say (and often little knowledge) about alternatives.

The need for a Registrar at non-C of E Christian marriages was abolished years ago.

Not sure about non-Christian ones, though.

Catholic weddings in the early 70s, a Registrar had to do a Civil Ceremony behind the scenes. I'm not sure what happens now, but a Muslim marrige, for example, is not legal unless the Civil part is adhered to beforehand.

Sometimes (eg in my family), youd be pressured to do what your parents want, and if they want the nikah first or only a nikah, then thats what will happen.

That is where there is confusion. To have full protection Civil marriage should always be carried out. I actually think that any marriage ceremony (whatever the faith) is carried out then it should be made compulsory for a Registrar to be present in the UK. Anything else should be illegal and a crime, or just an agreement to marry. This should be published in all areas of the UK and in all languages so there is no ambiguity.

Where I'm from, the only legal marriage is the civil registry office one. You could have any type of religious wedding, including very mainstream ones, but without the civil marriage, you are not legally married. It means equality for everyone, job done.

It already is illegal: somebody performing a spiritual or religious ceremony cannot misrepresent the ceremony as creating a legally valid marriage when it does not - there’s no subterfuge (in the majority of cases) whereby religious leaders pretend the ceremony they’re performing does. In the case of nikkah, what’s being explicitly performed is the creation of a halal relationship, and the majority of imams nowadays will make it very clear that if a couple also wish for a legally recognised marriage as well they need to arrange that separately. But, some couples of all and no faiths choose to cohabit and have children and not to marry because they believe it’s “just a piece of paper” and we allow them to do that even if it’s based on ignorance and it might not be in their best interests; and the same applies here, you can’t force people to get married if they choose not to.

I agree there’s absolutely a need for greater education and support for women within some communities so that they have the knowledge and agency to advocate for themselves - but that needs to be done sensitively and with the communities themselves engaged, not by restricting religious practice.

There is nothing "Sensitive" about Legal Marriage: Either you are Legally Married or not (living together). That should be advertised throughout the UK in all languages. There is no two ways about that.

Celebrants should be legally bound to register all marriages, at all times, irrespective of the views of the couples concerned. Also, retrospectively, all past Nikahs should be registered as legal for the woman's protection, irrespective of any religious views on the matter, unless the couple have separated and both agree that the marriage was null and void.

This might/could/should be part of all School curriculums so that everyone educated in the UK have knowledge about marriage/legal partnerships/religious partnerships. No one should be left ignorant about their rights in this country.