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 press release on Wednesday that Britain’s marriage laws and protections for ladies and kids are being undermined by confusion over religious and civil ceremonies, and resulting in “parallel” marriages.
It said that Minister for Courts Sarah Sackman had “got it unsuitable” when she told Parliament that folks appearing before sharia councils accomplish that “in common with Christian, Jewish and other courts of religion.”
C4M said her claim was inaccurate because only civil marriages create legal rights and duties within 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 can also be conducted.
“Stop legitimising private forums as ‘courts’ in official speech,” C4M said.
“There isn’t any 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 provide women and kids 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 during which a convicted rapist held a sharia wedding ceremony together with his 15-year-old victim, attended by a social employee.
“The case underlines why a single, public, civil law of marriage protects women and kids,” C4M said.
The statement went on to attract attention to the row over an NHS article that spoke of the “advantages” 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 The article was withdrawn after a public backlash, which included criticism from health secretary Wes Streeting who questioned why it had been published in the primary place.
C4M said, “The Minister was unsuitable, the social employee was unsuitable, and the NHS statement was unsuitable. We must stop the drift away from one marriage law for all.”
It is asking 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 skilled sanctions where state officials facilitate such events”.
NHS communications should “be science-led and unambiguous on consanguinity risks”, it adds.
“A civil marriage gives each spouses the protections that personal ceremonies simply don’t,” said C4M.
“The principle is positive and fair. One law of marriage for all strengthens freedom, dignity and belonging.
“It safeguards the vulnerable and offers young couples a transparent, secure foundation for all times in real (man-woman) marriage. That’s something to rejoice 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 can’t dissent from state-sanctioned marriage even within the private sphere,” he said.
 A campaign group has come out strongly against sharia marriages and called for several measures to be put into place to strengthen the...){kind=link}