A campaign group has come out strongly against sharia marriages and called for several measures to be put into place to strengthen the civil framework of marriage.
The Coalition for Marriage (C4M) suggested in a statement on Wednesday that Britain’s marriage laws and protections for women and children are being undermined by confusion over religious and civil ceremonies, and leading to "parallel" marriages.
It said that Minister for Courts Sarah Sackman had “got it wrong” when she told Parliament that people appearing before sharia councils do so “in common with Christian, Jewish and other courts of faith.”
C4M said her claim was inaccurate because only civil marriages create legal rights and duties in the UK, and that while Christian and Jewish weddings are integrated into that legal system "through authorised officiants and registered places", sharia marriages "don't comply" unless a civil marriage is also conducted.
"Stop legitimising private forums as ‘courts’ in official speech," C4M said.
"There is no parity with the family courts in law or effect."
The coalition wants Ms Sackman to "return to the House to correct the record".
"Britain’s marriage laws and the protections they offer women and children are under threat from cultural drift and ministerial mis-speak," its statement continued.
C4M cited a government review which previously warned that describing sharia councils as “courts” risks legitimising a parallel system outside UK law.
It also highlighted a recent case reported by The Times in which a convicted rapist held a sharia marriage ceremony with his 15-year-old victim, attended by a social worker.
"The case underlines why a single, public, civil law of marriage protects women and children," C4M said.
The statement went on to draw attention to the row over an NHS article that spoke of the "benefits" of first-cousin marriage. The article was withdrawn after a public backlash, which included criticism from health secretary Wes Streeting who questioned why it had been published in the first place.
C4M said, "The Minister was wrong, the social worker was wrong, and the NHS statement was wrong. We must stop the drift away from one marriage law for all."
It is calling for civil marriage to be compulsory "before or at any religious ceremony, with clear penalties for non-compliance", and "no unregistered ‘weddings’, no child ‘marriages’, and professional sanctions where state officials facilitate such events".
NHS communications should "be science-led and unambiguous on consanguinity risks", it adds.
"A civil marriage gives both spouses the protections that private ceremonies simply do not," said C4M.
"The principle is positive and fair. One law of marriage for all strengthens freedom, dignity and belonging.
"It safeguards the vulnerable and gives young couples a clear, secure foundation for life in real (man-woman) marriage. That’s something to celebrate and pass on."
The proposals have stirred some debate online, with John Stevens, National Director of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC), coming out against them.
He argued that they "could have far-reaching consequences and restrict religious freedom for other communities, including Jews and Christians".
"It essentially means you cannot dissent from state-sanctioned marriage even in the private sphere," he said.
