The British parliament gave final approval to a bill legalizing same-sex marriage and it was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II (it’s just a formality, but what is this, the 17th century?). The law still prohibits the Church of England from performing the ceremonies.
But more controversial, apparently, are humanist weddings. Howard Friedman reports that the law contains a provision to commission a study of whether they should allow humanist weddings and he quotes this from the debate on that provision:
Does [a fellow-MP] agree that there are important protections in the amendments made in the other place to prevent the possibility of crazy things such as Jedi weddings? This is about humanist weddings, which are very specific. It is not about commercial weddings, Jedi weddings or any of the other scaremongering that we have heard.
But why care if it does? What difference could it possibly make to anyone not participating in the wedding? The legal marriage should be nothing more than a matter of signing a piece of paper. However the couple wants to celebrate that event at that point should be totally irrelevant.