The Ministry of Justice has opened a consultation on what the government describes as the biggest overhaul of weddings law in England and Wales in almost two centuries. Couples could, for the first time, legally marry at home, in a pub, or even on a cruise ship.

The current rules date back to the Marriage Act 1836, which first introduced civil marriage — a legally binding wedding conducted by the state rather than a religious body. Under that framework, a ceremony in England and Wales must take place at an approved, licensed venue to count in law. The new proposals would scrap that restriction: couples could marry almost anywhere, provided a registered officiant — the person legally empowered to conduct the ceremony — has approved the location (BBC News).

The consultation document, titled "Tying the Knot: Reforming Weddings Law in England and Wales," sets out a new legal structure for civil weddings. Entering a legally binding marriage would involve three distinct stages, though the core requirements during the ceremony itself would be simple: signing the paperwork and giving consent in the presence of an officiant (gov.uk).

The reforms build on years of work by the Law Commission of England and Wales, the independent body that reviews and recommends changes to the law. The Commission has long argued that the statutory framework dating from 1836 is no longer fit for purpose (Law Commission).

One of the most striking features of the proposals is what the government calls a "dignity framework." This would ban ceremonies treated as gimmicks — things that risk treating marriage as a joke rather than a serious legal commitment. Skydiving, white-water rafting, and rollercoaster weddings are cited as examples that would fall outside the new rules. The consultation document also says food and drink, including alcohol, should not be casually consumed during the ceremony itself (BBC News).

On religious content, the government proposes loosening the current rules that bar religious material from civil ceremonies. Readings from the Bible, for instance, could be allowed — softening a boundary that has separated civil and religious marriage since 1836.

The proposals would also give legal standing to non-religious belief organisations, including Humanists, allowing them to conduct legally binding weddings. At present, a Humanist ceremony in England and Wales has no legal weight, so couples must also go through a separate civil registration.

Cost is part of the government's thinking. Venue hire alone for a wedding typically runs to around £6,000 before any catering, according to figures cited by the UK government (gov.uk).

The consultation runs until 24 September. After that, the government would need to draft and pass new primary legislation — a full Act of Parliament — to bring the changes into force. That makes reform unlikely before next year at the earliest.

This is an England-and-Wales measure. Marriage law is devolved: Scotland has its own Parliament at Holyrood, where Humanist weddings have been legally recognised since 2005, and Northern Ireland's legislature at Stormont operates under different rules again. Any change passed at Westminster will not apply north of the border or in Northern Ireland.

The broader context here is one of steady, incremental modernisation of a legal framework that has survived largely unchanged since the Victorian era. The 1836 Act brought civil marriage into existence; nearly two centuries on, the government is proposing to sever the link between a fixed physical venue and a legally valid wedding. The dignity framework is the counterweight: ministers want flexibility, but not a free-for-all. Where exactly the line falls between a garden wedding and a white-water rafting ceremony will be settled by ministerial or regulatory judgment once consultation responses are in.

For those working in the weddings industry, for registrars, and for faith and belief organisations, the consultation period is the moment to have a say. Moving from proposals on paper to binding law will require legislation to be slotted into the government's parliamentary programme, and the timeline for that remains uncertain.