Here in the UK there are potential big changes on the horizon when it comes to how you can get legally married. There is a lot of conflicting information out there so I wanted to try and get to the heart of what all this means for you. I spoke with Professor of Law at Cardiff University Russell Sandberg to try and get a clearer understanding about the possible changes in the law and what it could mean to our industry.

Follow Russell on Instagram for updates

Read Russell's book

Read the Law Commission information

Time Stamps:

00:16 - Introduction to Wedding Business Strategies

08:07 - Understanding Marriage Law Reform

18:26 - The Debate on Celebrant Types in Marriage

22:51 - The Role of Celebrants in Wedding Law Reform

Mentioned in this episode:

Last few tickets for Wed Pros Live!

Want to join me for Wed Pros Live in London or Ireland this March? There are only a few tickets remaining. Kilkenny: Monday 23rd March 2026 London: Wednesday 25th March 2026

Wed Pros Live

So there's quite a lot out there. But as you say, you've also got to be wise in terms of who's saying what and what they're trying to protect and what vested interests they have.

My vested interest is simply I want the law to be accessible.

I'm Becca Poutney, wedding business marketing expert, speaker and blogger, and you're listening to the Wedding Pros who Are Ready to Grow podcast.

I'm here to share with you actionable tips, strategies and real life examples to help you take your wedding business to the next level in if you are an ambitious wedding business owner that wants to take your passion and use it to build a profitable, sustainable business doing what you love, then you're in the right place. Let's get going with today's episode. Today I'm chatting with Russell Sandberg, professor of Law at Cardiff University.

His particular expertise is in law and religion. Russell has become a known figure in the world of celebrants because of his writing and involvement in the much talked about UK marriage law reform.

Today I wanted to get him on the podcast to help us all understand what this reform is all about and how it's going to impact the industry here in the uk. Russell, welcome to the podcast.

Thank you very much. I'm delighted to be here.

I'm glad to have you. I think this is the first time I've ever had a professor on my podcast. So thank you so much for taking the time to be here.

Delighted to.

Now you are talking to an industry full of creatives. Here we are florists and photographers and cake makers, so.

So you may need to start by explaining to us why you wanted to go into law, because that is a long way from most of our mindsets.

Well, like most things, it's happenstance and as with most things, it's not designed because that's the thing with a career, right?

You sort of look back at it and you can make this sort of thread and people can look at a CV and go, oh yeah, that's the thread and that's complete nonsense. It's basically right time, right place, and often defined by what you don't want to do.

So I knew that I was useless at science, I was better at sort of humanities, that kind of thing. And you know, so that sort of rules out sort of medicine, that rules out sort of dentistry. So what professors are left with basically the law.

And yeah, I mean, I enjoyed the subjects.

I was studied at a level and to an extent I'm still doing most of them because I studied sociology, religious studies and history and I write about all three in terms of their connection to the law. But, yeah, I've got no idea why I then sort of went, I'm off to study law.

So I studied law with sociology back in the day at Cardiff and haven't moved since. Basically just become part of the furniture.

And again, it's just complete happenstance that, you know, in year one, as a fresher, my personal tutor was someone who wrote about the law of the church. And so that's of triggered off an interest in terms of how the state deals with religion.

And then I collaborated with a senior professor of a law school whose expertise was in family law. And so, yeah, it's just sort of.

It's been a pragmatic evolution and evolution overplays in terms of your back and forth, back and forth between various different ideas. And like I say, many ways, I'm still doing exactly the same thing I was doing at the age of 18, which is either great or slightly depressive.

What is it, do you think about the law and religion and that intersection that is just become so interesting to you? Is there something you go, you know, if you were trying to pitch me on why I should be interested in law and religion, what, why?

Well, I think it comes back to sort of the thing that really interested me at a level, I mean, we're way back now, was where I was learning about stuff which was in the news, which was current, which was sort of everyday.

And studying law is studying everyday stuff because sort of, you know, every sort of news story has a legal dimension and your everyday life has a legal dimension too, you know, quite often.

So what was interesting was, as I was sort of finishing my undergraduate degree and then doing my PhD, my doctorate, sort of issues concerning religion were everywhere in the news and issues concerning law and religion were everywhere in the news, in terms of wearing of Islamic dress at schools, whether or not you can discriminate on grounds of religion, whether religious people can discriminate and religious groups can discriminate on grounds of sexuality, for instance, you know, whether it's a criminal offense to blaspheme or to incite religious hatred, reforms in relation to charity law concerning religion, education law, marriage law, though not many reforms there yet, but we'll come to that shortly. But yes, it offers a different way of looking at the law, actually, a different way of kind of looking at current affairs.

And yeah, who knows, had I been doing that sort of decade before, I might have been writing about something completely different.

It's happenstance yeah, but it's actually really interesting because you just mentioned a lot of things that I would not even have considered to be connected. And actually you're right, it does. There does is a lot of intersection and there is a lot in the news about the connection between religion and law.

So yeah, I can, I can see why you're interested piquing my interest already. Now let's talk about marriage then, specifically, because obviously that's what people are thinking about here.

And so yeah, it really is a historical construct. And actually it's exactly the same as I was saying about careers in that it's often, it's not design, it's pragmatic response, it's compromise.

And so our history of marriage law is the history of compromise in terms of, you know, originally saying, right, okay, we need to formalize this. And we need to formalize this by saying you've got to get married in the Church of England church. Oh, hang on a minute. What about Jews?

Oh yes, of course we're allowed Jews. What about Quakers? Of course we're allowed Quakers. And then time goes on.

And what about other forms of Christianity which are now starting to become lawful again? Oh yes, okay, we'll find ways to deal with them, but we'll deal with them differently.

How we've dealt with the Church of England, how we dealt with Jews, how we've dealt with Quakers.

So actually what the history of our marriage law shows is that changing the law, adapting the law, modernizing the law to fit change in social needs has been the norm.

And actually the last 80 years or so has been atypical because yes, there have been pieces of law reform, most notably same sex marriage, but that has just been sort of copy and pasted into existing laws rather than going back to change the foundations.

And most countries when they and most of our neighboring countries when they introduce same sex marriage, used as an opportunity to modernize their marriage laws. England and Wales went, no, we're not doing that. That's far too complicated. There's far too many vested interests in that.

We will just copy and Paste stuff from existing marriage law and build the civil partnership and then same sex marriage on top of this already rickety ancient structure.

That makes perfect sense to me. So we've basically just been patching it up all of the time. Oh yeah, we'll just add that patch and we'll just add that patch.

But actually the thing as a whole isn't really working or is a bit outdated and not fit for purpose. So then talk to me about the marriage law reform, because that's the thing that wedding industry people are hearing about now.

It's been talked about, I believe it's been talked about for quite a while, but it seems to suddenly have re entered the public sphere again a little bit more widely. What is the aim of that? Is it to take it back to basics and rebuild the whole thing or is it just another patch?

It's to rebuild the whole thing. It's comprehensive law reform to look again really and to change the underlying premise of our law.

Because our underlying premise of our law at the moment is buildings based on.

It also excludes quite a lot of religious marriages because they don't always occur in a place of worship. So the problem has been that our law hasn't kept up to date with these significant changes.

And so all those weddings are not legally binding unless and until the couple also go through the legal formality. So that basically means two ceremonies and medicinal cost.

And there's quite a lot of data which shows that in some communities it's also misunderstood. So for instance, in the Islamic community it's often misunderstood.

And so they think they are legally married and that becomes a problem if and when the relationship breaks down and suddenly they don't have the rights on divorce which they normally would have because there's no legal marriage to divorce. So over the last decade or so there's been moves for marriage reform. They were originally spearheaded by the humanists.

They got parliament to agree and it's in the act that there would be A consultation on humanist marriage. And then there's a power which allows a government minister to enact humanist marriage.

Now, one of those things have come to pass, the other thing hasn't. So the consultation took place and the consultation came out basically with the view. Yes, but it's complicated.

And so what they then said was, there's a need for the Law Commission, which is a body in England and Wales that looks at areas of law which are in need of reform. It's sort of headed up by commissioners, often sort of academics, who are sort of assigned to it for a particular period of time.

And so the Law Commission then brought out a consultation paper, a scoping paper originally, then a consultation paper, then a final paper. And as you can imagine, this all takes years.

And that would open the door to humanist celebrants, that would open the door to independent celebrants, that would open the door to religious marriages outside of religious buildings. And then the thing, the Law Commission publishes a report and the government then needs to respond in six months. That's part of the deal.

Well, the Conservative government never responded, so nothing happened for years. Then Labour came to power and they in opposition, were keen on it, it has to be said, and were pressing the Conservatives on it.

So vacant to power amendment, and said, yes, this is something we want to look into. But obviously the Law Commission's final report was only 500 pages long. It's a huge technical document about how you could do this.

So they've taken their time, understandably, as we said, to get their heads around it.

And then about a fortnight or so ago, just out of the blue, there was a press release from the Ministry of Justice saying, yes, we are going to move on this. Yes, we're going to follow the Law Commission, yes, we're going for comprehensive reform.

Yes, we're trying to solve those issues, which I've just explained.

In terms of humanist marriage, in terms of religious marriages, they didn't mention independent celebrants or they did not mention independent celebrants, if you see what I mean. We can get into that if you want.

And they said, right, okay, the next step now is another consultation next year, but this will now be presumably a consultation on the actual proposals rather than on the problem, which is what we've had up until now.

So there will be a consultation once there's a consultation, depending on the results of that, then there will be a bill put forward if and when there is time. So, you know, we're not looking for an immediate change here.

We're not looking for something we sort of, you know, in terms of this is going to affect couples who are looking to get married in the short term, unless they're looking for a very long engagement, it's probably not an issue will engage them, but it is an issue which should engage stakeholders in terms of this will make the law much clearer. This will save couples money in terms of not having to do it twice effectively and will have quite sort of significant effects.

And the key, key, key thing I think is that the press release from the Ministry of Justice a couple of weeks ago was framed in this very much in economic terms because they'll say no, this is going to liberalize things. This is going to allow marriages on the beach which are legally binding, etc.

And so the more that the wedding community can get behind it, the more likelihood a of it getting through the consultation phase because there are people with vested interests who don't want this to go through and there was a lot of opposition to the law commission stuff and those voices will come out again here. So that'll be an important period of time and then apply in the presser to go, look, you want to do this, we want you to do this.

When will you do this, please?

Okay, so basically it's a very long, complicated process that doesn't happen quickly. Takes a lot of time, a lot of years, a lot of knowledge.

And then when they put out a press release, the industry goes into a tailspin because they don't really understand it.

That's what I've seen happen over the last couple of weeks and I think you beautifully explained it there especially, especially with regards to independent celebrants, because as you said, they weren't mentioned. But they also, you know, they weren't mentioned. It doesn't mean anything for or against them. They just weren't in there.

Which I know did cause some concern for some of them as well. So let's look at what's going on in other countries.

Is this the same model, having the idea that you, you give the approval to the person rather than the building? Is that what they do in America? Is that what they do in Australia?

I don't know if Tom, in about those two jurisdictions because it varies by significant significantly depend on the country and depend on the legal system. But that's what they do in our neighboring jurisdictions now.

So that's what they do in Scotland, that's what they do in the Jersey islands, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Things are very different on the continent because on the continent they've got well entrenched this two ceremony idea where, you know, there is the state ceremony and then the religious or other ceremony. And so, you know, I was at a conference this summer about something else, some sort of overconference meal.

Someone was asking, you know, what else are you working on? I was talking about marriage reform and they just didn't get it. And sort of, it was literally sort of a minute into the conversation I raised.

I get the reason why you're not getting this is because for you this is not a problem, this is your norm. And you know, if we were starting from scratch, that might be what we'd go for in terms of simplicity, but we're not starting from scratch.

And you can't start taking rights away from people and away from organizations. I mean, vested interests are kicking off enough as it is without actually taking away the right to legally marry people. So, yeah, it's common.

And one of the good things about the law Commission's report is it does look at other jurisdictions.

My book on the topic actually does the same in terms of neighboring jurisdictions because it looks at how then you can actually put these ideas into legislation because it goes well, okay, what have they done about this in Scotland? What have they done about this in Ireland? If we merge those two together, we can get something that suits us.

Where a couple of countries have come unstuck, and this is where Scotland have come slightly unstuck, is they haven't recognized independent celebrants. And what that has meant is that a lot of independent celebrants have become humanist north of border in order to get legal recognition.

And so that's one of the reasons why we wanted to try and get something a bit more sort of broader and fairer here. Because otherwise you're just removing one discrimination, replace it with another.

And in terms of the question of what is a non religious belief or what is a humanist belief, that's quite a soft border. And so that can lead to, as I say, issues there.

So explain it to me then in simple to understand terms because I have heard people say, well, if I'm independent, I'll just have to become a humanist. But I don't agree with what the humanists do. So what is the difference?

What makes someone a humanist celebrant or what makes someone an independent celebrant?

Well, the difference is the humanism if it's Humanist uk, is aligning yourself to a particular organization, a particular belief system.

So a humanist belief system is a belief system which is not religious, whereas independent celebrants are offering ceremonies which are utterly bespoke to the individuals and are not aligned to any traditional from the perspective of the celibate. So that's, that's, that's effectively the difference. I mean, you know, in relation to particular ceremonies, it might be difficult to actually spot.

But, you know, as I say, a humanist celebrant is coming from a particular belief perspective in the same way that a Catholic priest would come from a particular belief perspective. The difference being, I suppose, how sort of mainstream those beliefs are, you know, and, and that there is a difference between them.

And it is not ideal to have to kind of say you're a humanist celebrant when you're not in order to get legal recognition.

Yeah, absolutely not. And I do hope that they will recognize independence as well.

If you are a humanist celebrant, and I don't know if you know the answer to this, but are there restrictions on what you can do in a ceremony? Because I know a lot of independent ceremony celebrants.

One of the key things is that they can bring in different religious elements that maybe registrars can't, even if they're in a different place.

If they were to say, oh no, I'm going to be a humanist, because that's what the law might recognize, will that restrict them from doing that or are they still free to do what they like?

Well, it would depend on how the law was framed.

But the way in which the law commission is recommending it is that if your human is celebrant, you would be regulated by the state, but you would also be regulated by the body, Humanist uk. So that would be a question for them in terms of what they are willing to permit to go out in their name, if that makes sense.

So, you know, I know it. Humanism is a broad church, no pun intended there, but quite how brutal England is the question.

And I mean, you know, and a lot of this also comes down to the sort of the local level.

So I remember a few years ago going to a, what I was told was a humanist funeral in the South Wales Valleys and turned up and the celebrant was clearly also the chapel minister, because you could tell that just by the way he spoke, right?

He had that sort of, you know, Welsh chapel minister vibe going on and he was basically just doing a Christian light version of what he would normally do. And so sort of halfway through, we started talking about God. I was like, hang on a minute. This is not a humanist underbrand, humanist funeral.

So yeah, I think, you know, my perspective and others disagree on this, but my perspective is that as long as there's checks and balances in place in the system, I think you should go as broad as possible in terms of who could conduct.

And, you know, I think that if you're, if you're concerned with protecting and allowing people to manifest their beliefs through the question of how they get married and who marries them, then there's no limit on that. And sort of, you know, I see no problem in terms of, you know, people getting married on a football pitch by someone from the football organization.

You know, to me that is a sign of their belief in the same way as a couple at the altar in the parish church.

Yeah. And also from my perspective, I think it should be able to be the other way.

So as a Christian myself, I should be able to get married on a football pitch with a Christian ceremony. Whereas actually if you want a Christian ceremony, you're pretty restricted to getting married in a Christian place of worship.

And you can't get married in a, a beautiful venue because then you can't have the religious aspects. And so I think it does, it works both ways for everyone. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about it.

I remember my sister getting married and she grew up in the church but doesn't go to the church anymore. And so she wanted, you know, more of a state type wedding.

But she did want my grandparents to be able to say some prayers because she knew that would mean a lot to them. And so she went down the route of an independent celebrant and getting married in a registry office, but only because she had to.

Like she was restricted, but she didn't understand before she started digging into the wedding planning. I think a lot of people don't realize the restrictions are there and how, and they just don't understand why they're there either.

Well, and to be fair to the law commission in their report, one of the things they looked into as well was whether the law on restrictions in civil ceremonies could be relaxed because again, sort of that's historical happenstance, that's historical compromise.

So, you know, there's no real reason for them to be there other than to firmly demarcate civil from religious, which again, seems to be a distinction which we don't actually need. You know what I mean?

We can start if we focus on the people, if we put more weight and more importance and more legalities in terms of preliminaries, which is what the Law Commission suggests we do, then we can be much more liberal in terms of the actual ceremony. And that, to me makes perfect, perfect sense.

Because you're right, all these distinctions, finely drawn distinctions, complex distinctions, are not understood. And they're not understood because they don't make sense. They don't fit what we need today. And so the law needs reform.

Yeah, absolutely.

So talk to me about how you've become so involved in this yourself, Russell, because you've become somewhat of a celebrity figure in the world of the wedding industry and celebrants and quite often your name comes up.

If I'm talking with celebrants and this topic comes up, oh, you've got to follow Russell, you got to talk to Russell, you've got to watch Russell's videos. So how have you found yourself as a professor in Cardiff, being front of center of the celebrant wedding industry?

Well, not quite so about the celebrity status, but. But yeah, again, it's. It's pure happenstance, as I say, sort of.

You know, I was writing about law and religion and then, oh, about 10 years ago, we tried to get funding to do an empirical study into religious courts and how they determine questions of divorce and we didn't get it.

And then the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, gave this speech to lawyers where he mentioned Sharia law and suddenly everything went mad. It was front page of the newspapers. Call him out on it. In terms of trying to bring in Islamic law. He wasn't.

It was no bitters of stoning on the 10 o' clock news or this kind of thing. So we put the research bid back in for funding and this time we got the money because it was topical.

So we spent a year looking at a particular Sharia council, a Beth Dane, a Catholic tribunal, which was basically the priest's living room in Cardiff. That was a glamorous visit.

And so as a result of that, I started writing about this issue because what we were finding, one of the key things we found was, was that a significant number of people who were using the Sharia council, Muslims using the Syria Council, were using it because they were not legally married. Right. So it kind of came from that angle. So then you. I sort of spent a couple of years, every now and again, would sort of dabble with the issue.

And then I became aware the Law Commission was looking at it and the Law Commission came and spoke to a couple of us at Cardiff Myself and other family law academics, and I could sort of see that that could be an avenue of sort of helping to solve this issue. So I sort of contributed to that. And I thought, right, okay, this seems to be an issue where there seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding.

And all that was designed to do, really, was to outline what was the problem, to outline what the local mission at that time was suggesting as the solution, and to see whether or not that was viable. It came out broadly in favor with a few sort of tweaks.

And as I was writing it, I was aware that it was getting more attention than most of the stuff I wrote, to be frank. So I thought, hang on, this seems to be hot potato.

So we did a big online launch, we got Lady Hale, who had just retired from the Supreme Court, just to speak at it, and, you know, didn't sort of see any holes in the argument either. So, yeah, I sort of started posting about it and then before I knew, sort of, I was aware that sort of some celebrants were starting to follow.

And so then, you know, the odd invitation would come and it kind of snowballed. And like I say, it's taken the last five years retractively materialized in terms of something which the government is now planning to actually do.

But there's been all sorts of sort of little events on the way there in terms of sort of positive mention in Parliament there, a roaring debate about something else there, you know, so it's been something which has sort of been bubbling away as I sort of work on other stuff.

So, yeah, it's sort of, as I said earlier, you never know where career takes you and you never know what sort of, you know, I've written things which have been completely and utterly ignored and never read. And you never know when you're writing something whether it's going to be one of them or whether it's going to take off.

You always hope that it's going to be one that takes up, because for you at the moment, it's something that's important and something that you're passionate about, but you never, never know.

And I could sort of tell because I was also writing in the same period about changes in education law to do with religion, and by contrast, no one was interested in that. So you could tell the difference quite clearly in terms of sort of every social media post.

If I post about that, it Gets nothing if I post about it, gets something. So, yeah, it was a happy accent, but they've been brilliant to work with and it's been really, really useful, actually, to get that perspective.

Because, you know, I'll be honest with you, when I started working with this, I didn't know what an independent settlement was and sort of, you know, it's added a much richer dimension to the research and actually made quite a lot of the point I was making about discrimination, about equality and about fairness, about accessibility, even more important. So it's been a delight, but it's been a hell of a surprise.

Well, I know that they are so thankful for what you're doing because you are someone that is tackling something that is very complicated and yet is going to have a massive impact on both them and the wedding industry as a whole and make it more accessible to them. So please continue your good work. I will link to your Instagram in the show notes as well, so that people can keep up to date on this.

And I think when this big stuff comes out and people panic, you're a great voice of reason to go, no, it doesn't say anything. Don't panic. Just, you know, this is what we're going to do next.

Now, talking of what we're going to do next, you mentioned quite a bit earlier on in the conversation that now's actually quite a crucial time for us as an industry to get behind this. But a lot of people listening to this will think, I just don't even really understand. I don't even know what I can do.

So can you just give us some practical things? If people are like, yeah, this needs to happen, we want to get behind it, what do you think they should be doing?

Well, the key thing, I think, is to speak to their mp, to email, to send a letter to the mp, and to keep that, at the moment, very, very straightforward and very, very simple in terms of we're in favor of marriage law reform, because, you know, and as I say, sort of.

But pressing the economic argument which the government has made, highlighting also the social element and as you mentioned, a religious element as well, a philosophical element for some.

And what would be very, very useful, I think, would be the education of MPs before this hits them, because I would imagine most of them are in the same situation as I was in terms of not knowing what an independent celibate was. I think a lot of them will see this as sort of, well, people already get married on beaches, don't they?

And, yes, they do, but it's not legally binding and that causes these issues.

Okay, so for me, in my office here in Bedfordshire, I want to speak to my mp. I've never done that before. I have absolutely no idea how I do it. Could I ask to meet with them? Can I go to a clinic? Should I write a letter?

Because I would like to have my voice heard by them and I probably could educate them on a thing or two.

All of the above. All the contact details on the UK Parliament website, you can only talk to your mp. That's the way it works.

So if you see someone in terms of, you know, I want to talk to that person because they're the minister. No, that's not how it works. You have to work, you have to talk to your mp.

So on the parliamentary website, there's contact details, so that's usually the best way in terms of sending an email that will get to them.

Obviously, most MPs are also on social media and so keep an eye on there in terms of things like their own local meetings and that kind of thing where, you know, where you can make contact. It has to be said, you know, celebrants had significant success in terms of speaking to MPs, and there is a broad body of support here.

But like I say, the key thing is educating them.

What we need is comprehensive reform, as the Ministry of Justice is now saying, rather than the patch approach, which Humanist UK is still in favour of, because they want it just to be a patch for humanists and then everything else to be considered later. Well, that's not going to work, right, in terms of if Parliament feels, if it's dealt with the issue, it's going to move on.

It's been tough enough to try to get on their agenda up until now and, you know, if something is seen to be solved, even if it's not a complete solution, it's not going to register.

So I think that's the key thing and sort of, you know, for people who are listening to this, who are sort of independent celebrants, I think that the key thing is to remember that the Law Commission final report proposed a system which could include both humanists and independent celebrities and said it's a question for the government to decide whether it does or not. So they are still very, very much in the picture.

Unless and until the consultation says different to those who are outside the celebrant community, they might think they've got less of an interest in this, but actually, this could transform the industry going forward and could make a significant difference not least in terms of if it's saving the couple the price of the second ceremony, then that money could be spent elsewhere.

And also, you know, ceremonies outside of approved premises are ready and religious premises, but like, already popular, but this will make them even more popular. And so, you know, it's a real opportunity there to grasp it and to start making partnerships.

So in terms of sort of wedding venues and that kind of thing, how many of them are where and in contact with independent celebrants? Because at the moment they don't particularly want to be, because they will want their marriages to be approved by registrars.

So it's legal in assets. But this change will completely and utterly revolutionize that and open it up.

And also this is incredibly important, make it much more straightforward.

And that's for everyone, particularly the couples.

Who are completely confused. Well, yeah, I mean, you know, who talks about their marriage as the happiest days of their life? Right. You know what I mean?

It goes completely and at the counter to everyone's idea about what a wedding is. So it doesn't fit. It hasn't fitted for some time. It needs to go.

Now, you mentioned two areas who. I know both will be listening to this as well, who may be actually a little bit worried about the reform.

So I'd just like to tackle that before I let you go. One is venues. Venues are concerned that if people can get married on a beach or in their garden, that they will lose business.

And secondly is the registrars themselves who are saying, well, if they can have an independent celebrant who could do all of these things, and we're super restricted, restricted in what we can do as a registrar, are we also going to lose out here? So have you got any thoughts for those two sets of people?

Well, it depends on what comes out in terms of the final consultation, in terms of the final bill. But in terms of registrars, I think it's highly likely that the opportunity will also be made to. Will be used to liberalize the law on that.

And, you know, I think sort of the key thing, the message I would give to registrars and those involved in sort of policymaking there would be to see this as what it is and to see this as embodying choice.

And so actually, I think the key thing is that sort of, you know, at the moment, it's a real postcode lottery in terms of what you can get in registrar offices. And the more that can change, I would suggest, the less likely that this is going to have any sort of financial detrimental effect. On them.

Because you know, there are a lot of approved premises which people will still want to get married in. They already now include outside spaces of those approved premises. That is now that's been law for the last couple of years.

And so, you know, I think the more they can make the most of that and have different options available for different couples, the better because it's not one size fits all. I think that's the problem there in terms of venues, I think exactly the same.

It will be about marketing what is special about your venue and also it'll be crystal clear that weddings that take place there will be legally binded, whereas at the moment is only as if it's an approved premises and there's strings attached to that. So actually in many ways this will place obligations which were formerly on the place on the celebrant.

So there are, there's, there's good news for them in, in that regard. And you know, the difference they will have over a outdoor place like a beach is that they can offer the whole thing, the ceremony and the reception.

So you know, I don't think it's going to radically change overnight how people get married. I think what it's going to do is it's going to make certain ways of getting married legally binding and so remove the need for that second ceremony.

And ok, that's going to cost if.

Anything, depending on what happens and what the reform says. And going back to my point earlier about maybe you could end up having a religious ceremony on a football pitch.

Actually if, if that is able to happen, then it actually opens up more opportunities to those venues whereby people who were only able to get married in a place of religion may now actually be able to book and have that ceremony in their venue which could actually open up a huge new market to them.

Absolutely.

And it'll be a question of those venues having connections with a wide range of celebrants that will be key rather than just sort of doing, offering what they've always done, if that makes sense. But yeah, absolutely. You know, I think that there's, there's huge potential here and you know, the key key winners I think are couples.

And that's how it should be.

Yeah, absolutely. Now if people want to find out more or stay informed because this is an ever changing but slow moving beast. I've already mentioned your Instagram.

Are there any other trust trusted sources places they should be looking for this information?

Because I know it's a bit of a mixed bag out there and some of it's quite biased towards certain areas, where's the best place for them to find as much neutral information as they can?

Well, the Law Commission, when they publish their big 500 page report, also published some summaries. So they're very useful in terms of a fairly short, in comparison to 500 pages account of what they're proposing and the issues.

My book on the topic, as I mentioned, deals with it.

And on the book's website, on Bristol University Press website, there's a couple of other documents, a policy document which basically summarizes the main arguments. The book is there and that's freely available, so there's quite a lot out there.

But as you say, you've also got to be wise in terms of, of who's saying what and what they're trying to protect and, you know, what vested interests they have. My best interest is simply I want the law to be accessible. I want to try and remove things which are causing discrimination and inequality.

You know, I've got no sort of stake in the game other than that. So, yeah, I mean, like I said, there's those materials, the Law Commission stuff. Yeah, the summaries are very, very useful.

Perfect.

All right, as we finish, then, I'm going to ask you one final question, which is why should the industry as a whole, the wider industry, not the celebrants, why should we care about this at all?

Well, I think the reason it's worth caring about is that it will make things easier to explain, it will make things more accessible, it will make things more equal and it will open doors which have previously been closed and that will make a difference in terms of.

It'll make a difference to the couples, but it'll make a difference to various different stakeholders and various people involved in the wedding industry. And, you know, have a look at the Ministry of Justice press release. It framed this very much in economic terms.

And so if you're someone who makes their money out of weddings, it's going to have an effect on you.

And the key thing is that A, it happens, which, as I say, is no done deal at the moment, and B, it happens in a way that doesn't cause your detriment. So it's something that's definitely worth engaging with. Yes, it's complicated. Yes, it's often dull.

Yes, it's one of those things which is incredibly slow moving, but every now and again something happens out of the blue.

I mean, you know, probably it'll be a random Wednesday afternoon when the consultation papers, it sort of comes out and it'll take us all by surprise. But nevertheless, this is important stuff. It's once in a generation an opportunity, really to get a marriage law which is suitable for 21st century.

Amazing. Russell, thank you so much for your time. I'm sure this won't be the last time we speak.

I'm sure that we will speak again when updates come in the future.

But let me reiterate again, we are thankful as an industry that you care about what's going on in our industry and also really, really understand it and can help us all understand it in more simpler terms.

So thank you for the time, the energy, the effort that you're putting into it, and I'm sure once this podcast episode is released, you'll be even greater a celebrity in the wedding world than you were before. And I'm sure lots more people are going to follow along to just get those updates from you. So thank you so much for your time.

I'm excited to see what comes next.

Thank you very much.

As am I. I hope you enjoyed that episode with Russell.

I know that it's complicated, I know that it's heavy going trying to get your head around this law, but now is the time for us as an industry to act and to get behind this. As Russell said, this is a once in a generation opportunity to have an input in this.

And I believe now it's the time for not just the celebrants, but the wider industry as a whole to go and talk to their MPs to make their voices heard on this matter so that we can have an impact. If you want help with that, reach out to me, reach out to Russell. We'd love to chat more with you about it and I'll see you all next time.