Of the last five weddings I went to (nieces and nephews) two were in a church and three were not (one was in a park and two were at a home).
My BIL married in their church and had the reception in the fellowship hall. Being a Baptist church, the reception consisted of cake and punch. Period. No music, no dancing, just standing around with cake and punch.
Five and a half years ago, I got married in a nice park shelter. A friend who happens to be ordained did the ceremony. My cousin copy-catted us two years later. Both weddings lasted 4-5 hours at the outmost, then everybody got home in time for dinner.
In that time I have been to two Mennonite weddings that were in churches. Those were hours-long, into-the-night affairs.
Just remembered I missed out a non-church wedding I went to a couple of years ago, but that still leaves the count well in favour of “church”.
I’m not sure there’s a huge amount of difference - the cost of hiring the church for my wedding was less than 10% of the overall costs incurred, and I suspect had we used the reception venue for the ceremony as well, they would have charged a bit more accordingly. I’ll agree it is slightly inconvenient to have to drive from one venue to another, but in our case it was only half-an-hour which I think is considered quite acceptable. If it gets towards an hour’s journey or more then yes, people will grumble. Personally, the drive was one of my favourite parts of the day as it allowed us to spend a few quiet minutes as newlyweds before we had to be all sociable again.
It’s certainly true that in the UK the venue for the wedding has to be licensed for the marriage to be legal. On the other hand, you don’t need a marriage license like you do in the US. Am I right in thinking that in the US, once you have acquired the marriage license you can have the legal ceremony pretty much anywhere? I also remember the rules for what venues can and cannot be licensed being relaxed a few years ago, but not sure exactly when. There are also still rules like you cannot drink alcohol in the room where the ceremony is happening.
Well, the two are often mutually exclusive - few churches have sufficient facilities (in terms of space, comfort, catering, entertainment) to support a typical wedding reception. Hence you drive from one to the other.
I would definitely call a college chapel equivalent to a church for the purposes of this discussion, but of course the OP may choose to differ.
True. The officiant may have input on where he/she is willing to perform, but in the eyes of the state it can happen anywhere.
Official ruling from the OP: chapels = churches. 
Other than the UK rules about licensed venues, I wonder if there’s a geographic element to indoor vs outdoor weddings – like, are Californians (like me) more prone to get married on a golf course or a vineyard.
I have only been to a couple of weddings in the past two years, and they’ve all been church weddings.
I don’t think I’ve ever been to a wedding that’s not a church wedding. However, a couple of my friends have had destination weddings, but they were immediate family only.
In my family I’m about the only one who is seriously “church religious” and most of our weddings are still in churches; one of the few exceptions was my own - go figure. I think its still a great place for weddings though with maybe forests and more natural parks as a second choice.
My first wedding was in a church and didn’t cost a dime, so I am surprised that churches charge. Wait, we did give a little something to the altar boys and organist (who wouldn’t accept it) and of course the priest was invited to the reception. And I don’t think Catholic churches mandate ceremonies be held in the church! I’ve been to at least one Catholic outdoor wedding at a country club sometime in the early '70s.
The last four weddings I have been to were: mine, in a courthouse; two outside; and one in a historic building.
My daughter wanted a particular church setting at first, but it wasn’t available on the date that it worked for her, so she went with a hotel ballroom. The minister who officiated was of the faith of the church she’d originally wanted to get married in (Unitarian).
She didn’t choose her home church as it was out in the sticks, inconvenient for out of town guests.
It worked out great having ceremony and reception in the same place, a huuuuuge hotel ballroom downtown.
The problem with “proper Catholic weddings” is, you can’t just go up to the priest and say, “Can you perform our wedding?”; you have to go through “marriage classes” (which may take months to complete) first.
Of the last five weddings I’ve attended, two were at the magistrate’s court, two were on wine farms (one in a private chapel, one outdoors*), and one was at an Anglican parish church.
*Because of a weird legal restriction they had to go into a building for the official formalities, but the public ceremony was all outdoors.
I can recall going to ten weddings in my life (there might be some more that have slipped my mind) and three were in churches or synagogues (which I guess counts as a church for the purpose of this thread).
Oddly my sister was married in a synagogue and she is now a very strong atheist.
Heh, anecdote time: I am married to a Catholic, and as a non-Catholic I had to attend personal “Catholic training” with the priest (whom I had never met).
I was very nervous going to this guy’s house for the first “session” - I had no idea what to expect.
Anyway, I get there, and the priest was very nice - although he sort of resembled a caracature of Satan (he sported a pointy black beard and beetling eyebrows). After some chit-chat, I noticed a book on his shelf about the Bogomils - a gnostic sect of Christianity - and mentioned that I found such odd sects very interesting.
“You Do?” he remarked - all eager excitement. As it turned out, he was an authority on early gnostic sects, and facinated by their odd beliefs.
So I was treated to what amounted to a series of personal lectures on the topic - his interest in this far outstripped his interest in teaching me basic Catholicism. In fact, I grew very fond of his talks (which were both hugely knowledgable and wryly amusing - he was an effective speaker). I learned about the Bogomils, the Cathars, and suchlike - and when it was over, I was kinda sorry.
Judging from what I’ve heard over the years from others, this was not the typical experience of Catholic marriage class … 
I’m pretty sure “marriage classes” required by the Catholic Church do not take months. It’s a few short sessions, or you can do it all in one weekend retreat. I even noticed in looking it up that some dioceses let you do it online now. Apart from Malthus’ amusing story, I wish everyone would stop making the church out to be a total drag in every respect.
Not even a weekend retreat- I did it nearly 30 years ago on a single Saturday. There was a weekend retreat option, and another option with weekly meetings for two or three months- but those were choices. Sure, most Catholic parishes will advise you to start making arrangements at least 6 months in advance- but it’s not because pre-Cana classes last for 6 months.
For some reason I’ve been to a lot of weddings in my 35 years (I’m a fun gal?) and I’d say about 75% of them have had the ceremony in a church. The number hasn’t really changed in recent times.
Some of the non-church venues were a boat, a barn, a backyard, a hotel and a park.
When I was in my 20s and early 30s most of the weddings I went to were in churches. Including those of my siblings, cousins and friends.
Now In my (mid to late) 40s more of the weddings I attend are not in churches. Not just the second (or third) marriages among people my age, but even those of the next generation, my younger co-workers, etc.