Guilty of planning a PPD

holyguacamole79

If I may ask, what sits wrong with you?  

kahluakoala

Honestly, I'm much more offended about the fact that you're having your wedding on a Sunday for no reason than the fact that it's a "PPD" (ugh I hate that phrase so much. So sexist and classist!)

Honestly, I don't care a bit about the moment you become eligible for each others insurance as long as I'm seeing a ceremony that is important to you to start your married life. I do care that you've chosen an inconvenient date for your "vision". 

PamBeesly524

KahluaKoala said:

Honestly, I'm much more offended about the fact that you're having your wedding on a Sunday for no reason than the fact that it's a "PPD" (ugh I hate that phrase so much. So sexist and classist!)

Honestly, I don't care a bit about the moment you become eligible for each others insurance as long as I'm seeing a ceremony that is important to you to start your married life. I do care that you've chosen an inconvenient date for your "vision". 

??? what? The P can stand for "prince" or "princess" if you're really going to look that hard into it. Also, I'm sorry, by saying PPD are we offending all the royals out there? I'll make sure I go apologize to my copy of The Princess Diaries when I get home tonight. 

lembaslover

ABeautifulJourney said:

marriedhamstermom said:

I'm sorry but of all the bad reasons to have a PPD (nope there isn't a single good one imho), having one because you want your wedding to fall on a certain date is probably the dumbest. I don't understand why dates are so important to people. When you get married that date will become just as important to you as any other date. Also why does your FI care if you wear heels? I find that really weird...

I'm about eight inches shorter than he is, so I think he's looking forward to me not being at armpit level! 

I never said it was a good reason. But it's one of the few things he's requested, and I don't want to summarily tell him his feelings are unimportant because the Etiquette Police might get us. 

DH is a full foot taller than me so I get the awkward height difference it's just he would never tell me to wear heels, I choose to wear them sometimes b/c I like them but he never mentioned a word about how I should wear them for the wedding... To each is own I guess and if you aren't bothered by it that's great it just seems strange to me.

flantastic

"The Etiquette Police"? Really? You've been around here long enough to know that the real world consequences of going against etiquette are the actual people in your life being upset with you, whether it be for having a second ceremony or for having it on an inconvenient day for a stupid reason or both.

ABeautifulJourney

KahluaKoala said:

Honestly, I'm much more offended about the fact that you're having your wedding on a Sunday for no reason than the fact that it's a "PPD" (ugh I hate that phrase so much. So sexist and classist!)

Honestly, I don't care a bit about the moment you become eligible for each others insurance as long as I'm seeing a ceremony that is important to you to start your married life. I do care that you've chosen an inconvenient date for your "vision". 

Actually we planned to do a Sunday lunch-ish reception because Friday night is so hard for working guests. And we have a lot of parents who would need to get their kids home, so we didn't want to do a Saturday night reception and have people traveling super late. When we started talking Sundays is when he pointed out GFD was a Sunday. 

ShesSoCold

ABeautifulJourney said:

KahluaKoala said:

Honestly, I'm much more offended about the fact that you're having your wedding on a Sunday for no reason than the fact that it's a "PPD" (ugh I hate that phrase so much. So sexist and classist!)

Honestly, I don't care a bit about the moment you become eligible for each others insurance as long as I'm seeing a ceremony that is important to you to start your married life. I do care that you've chosen an inconvenient date for your "vision". 

Actually we planned to do a Sunday lunch-ish reception because Friday night is so hard for working guests. And we have a lot of parents who would need to get their kids home, so we didn't want to do a Saturday night reception and have people traveling super late. When we started talking Sundays is when he pointed out GFD was a Sunday. 

So this isn't even something that was important to him from the beginning?!

Seriously, don't have a PPD. Your half-assed "well we kinda maybe want this but this other thing is kinda maybe cool" attitude is the worst.

LondonLisa

Have a Sunday brunch wedding- it will be awesome. Have the wedding ceremony in a church if you can find one available, or have a civil ceremony. Call it a day. Sounds like fun. Don't get married beforehand, don't have a fake redo, just get married on that day. If you are willing to give up a church wedding for a dream venue, I think that means that you shouldn't be having a church wedding in the first place. 

You are making this so much more complicated than it needs to be. 

ABeautifulJourney

LondonLisa said:

Have a Sunday brunch wedding- it will be awesome. Have the wedding ceremony in a church if you can find one available, or have a civil ceremony. Call it a day. Sounds like fun. Don't get married beforehand, don't have a fake redo, just get married on that day. If you are willing to give up a church wedding for a dream venue, I think that means that you shouldn't be having a church wedding in the first place. 

You are making this so much more complicated than it needs to be. 

That's why I came here for advice. Because we went into this a little unclear on the ramifications of a civil ceremony with a follow up--I assumed it would be similar to the process my parents went through. 

ABeautifulJourney

flantastic said:

"The Etiquette Police"? Really? You've been around here long enough to know that the real world consequences of going against etiquette are the actual people in your life being upset with you, whether it be for having a second ceremony or for having it on an inconvenient day for a stupid reason or both.

I've only been lurking for about two weeks and have been trying to learn the ropes. I'm sorry. 

kahluakoala

PamBeesly524 said:

KahluaKoala said:

Honestly, I'm much more offended about the fact that you're having your wedding on a Sunday for no reason than the fact that it's a "PPD" (ugh I hate that phrase so much. So sexist and classist!)

Honestly, I don't care a bit about the moment you become eligible for each others insurance as long as I'm seeing a ceremony that is important to you to start your married life. I do care that you've chosen an inconvenient date for your "vision". 

??? what? The P can stand for "prince" or "princess" if you're really going to look that hard into it. Also, I'm sorry, by saying PPD are we offending all the royals out there? I'll make sure I go apologize to my copy of The Princess Diaries when I get home tonight. 

It's classist because it's a judgment on who does and does not "deserve" a wedding. It doesn't apply to every situation and I think people here try to apply it with a broad brush. Like when someone doesn't like one aspect of their wedding and wants a "redo" for pictures or whatever it's applicable, but you also see a lot of people who had to get married quickly (often for financial reasons or to do with military benefits) and everyone says "not everyone is entitled to a wedding" to imply that they *deserve* their wedding for not having a financial emergency or for having "the foresight to plan" (i.e. more money). That, IMO, is classist.

Also, acting like any given couple will take no meaning in a public ceremony if they've already had a civil ceremony is disingenuous.

I really dislike the phrase. Not every situation is a "pretty princess (you know it means princess) day" because the bride wants pictures and I think it's an unfair phrase that immediately assigns judgment to something that may or may not deserve it.

LondonLisa

ABeautifulJourney said:

LondonLisa said:

Have a Sunday brunch wedding- it will be awesome. Have the wedding ceremony in a church if you can find one available, or have a civil ceremony. Call it a day. Sounds like fun. Don't get married beforehand, don't have a fake redo, just get married on that day. If you are willing to give up a church wedding for a dream venue, I think that means that you shouldn't be having a church wedding in the first place. 

You are making this so much more complicated than it needs to be. 

That's why I came here for advice. Because we went into this a little unclear on the ramifications of a civil ceremony with a follow up--I assumed it would be similar to the process my parents went through. 

It is not a problem. We aren't cross, just trying to figure out what you actually want. I almost feel like you want permission to just have a civil wedding. 

Being willing to give up a church wedding for a dream venue is a lot like willing to have a 1 night stand with a sexy bloke whilst you are engaged. It says a lot about what you want, and if it is truly right for you (Not insinuating that you are cheating on your fi!). But if a church wedding was that easy to pass over for a pretty venue, the church can't be that important to you. AND THAT IS OK! It kind of feels that you are beating yourself up about having a Catholic wedding because you feel that you will be cutting ties with the church if you don't. 

If you aren't THAT religious, and a day and venue are more important, you don;t have to have a church wedding. It isn't the end of the world. Is it because you are afraid of the repercussions if you don't? It is fine to be a lapsed religious person. But you shouldn't have a religious ceremony (or pressure yourself into it) just because you are worried about what happens if not.

Be truly honest with yourself: you really should only be having a Catholic wedding if you are committing yourself to being a member of the Catholic faith fully. Are you going to start going to church regularly? Raise your kids in the faith?

It is totally fine to be doubting your religion, or not have it be a priority for you. But if you don't want to fully be catholic, don't half arse it by having a Catholic wedding JIC. 

If in a few years, you find faith, and actively want to be a part of the church, I am sure you could speak to a Priest about rejoining and what you need to have happen in order to be in good standing. 

charlotte989875

KahluaKoala said:

PamBeesly524 said:

KahluaKoala said:

Honestly, I'm much more offended about the fact that you're having your wedding on a Sunday for no reason than the fact that it's a "PPD" (ugh I hate that phrase so much. So sexist and classist!)

Honestly, I don't care a bit about the moment you become eligible for each others insurance as long as I'm seeing a ceremony that is important to you to start your married life. I do care that you've chosen an inconvenient date for your "vision". 

??? what? The P can stand for "prince" or "princess" if you're really going to look that hard into it. Also, I'm sorry, by saying PPD are we offending all the royals out there? I'll make sure I go apologize to my copy of The Princess Diaries when I get home tonight. 

It's classist because it's a judgment on who does and does not "deserve" a wedding. It doesn't apply to every situation and I think people here try to apply it with a broad brush. Like when someone doesn't like one aspect of their wedding and wants a "redo" for pictures or whatever it's applicable, but you also see a lot of people who had to get married quickly (often for financial reasons or to do with military benefits) and everyone says "not everyone is entitled to a wedding" to imply that they *deserve* their wedding for not having a financial emergency or for having "the foresight to plan" (i.e. more money). That, IMO, is classist.

Also, acting like any given couple will take no meaning in a public ceremony if they've already had a civil ceremony is disingenuous.

I really dislike the phrase. Not every situation is a "pretty princess (you know it means princess) day" because the bride wants pictures and I think it's an unfair phrase that immediately assigns judgment to something that may or may not deserve it.

I also think it's a little sexist because it assumes it's the bride that "wants to play dress up" and that's the reason for it. Men can want this as well.

We moved two weeks after getting engaged, roughly a thousand miles away from where either of our families lived. At first H wanted to just get legally married not for insurance, but because the state, and our jobs, made it difficult to recognize a non-spouse, non-family beneficiary and emergency contact. We definitely wouldn't have had any decision making authority for each other had there been an emergency (thank gods there wasn't). He argued HARD for a legal ceremony, and a wedding later where we had vows and whatnot. We decided against it, but still he was the one insisting, not me.

Look, I get that a lot of people are against these "re-enactments", "redos", and for very good reason, they hurt your friends and families' feelings. Also, much of the time we see people keeping this a secret and lying to families. But can we stop assuming it's always the bride and it's because she wants to "play dress up", there are typically two people in a relationship and men can have strong opinions about weddings and ceremonies, too.

kahluakoala

charlotte989875 said:

KahluaKoala said:

PamBeesly524 said:

KahluaKoala said:

Honestly, I'm much more offended about the fact that you're having your wedding on a Sunday for no reason than the fact that it's a "PPD" (ugh I hate that phrase so much. So sexist and classist!)

Honestly, I don't care a bit about the moment you become eligible for each others insurance as long as I'm seeing a ceremony that is important to you to start your married life. I do care that you've chosen an inconvenient date for your "vision". 

??? what? The P can stand for "prince" or "princess" if you're really going to look that hard into it. Also, I'm sorry, by saying PPD are we offending all the royals out there? I'll make sure I go apologize to my copy of The Princess Diaries when I get home tonight. 

It's classist because it's a judgment on who does and does not "deserve" a wedding. It doesn't apply to every situation and I think people here try to apply it with a broad brush. Like when someone doesn't like one aspect of their wedding and wants a "redo" for pictures or whatever it's applicable, but you also see a lot of people who had to get married quickly (often for financial reasons or to do with military benefits) and everyone says "not everyone is entitled to a wedding" to imply that they *deserve* their wedding for not having a financial emergency or for having "the foresight to plan" (i.e. more money). That, IMO, is classist.

Also, acting like any given couple will take no meaning in a public ceremony if they've already had a civil ceremony is disingenuous.

I really dislike the phrase. Not every situation is a "pretty princess (you know it means princess) day" because the bride wants pictures and I think it's an unfair phrase that immediately assigns judgment to something that may or may not deserve it.

I also think it's a little sexist because it assumes it's the bride that "wants to play dress up" and that's the reason for it. Men can want this as well.

We moved two weeks after getting engaged, roughly a thousand miles away from where either of our families lived. At first H wanted to just get legally married not for insurance, but because the state, and our jobs, made it difficult to recognize a non-spouse, non-family beneficiary and emergency contact. We definitely wouldn't have had any decision making authority for each other had there been an emergency (thank gods there wasn't). He argued HARD for a legal ceremony, and a wedding later where we had vows and whatnot. We decided against it, but still he was the one insisting, not me.

Look, I get that a lot of people are against these "re-enactments", "redos", and for very good reason, they hurt your friends and families' feelings. Also, much of the time we see people keeping this a secret and lying to families. But can we stop assuming it's always the bride and it's because she wants to "play dress up", there are typically two people in a relationship and men can have strong opinions about weddings and ceremonies, too.

@charlotte989875

Thank you - that was my point. I'm not saying it's "right", but it's not always about dress-up or pictures. 

LondonLisa

KahluaKoala said:

PamBeesly524 said:

KahluaKoala said:

Honestly, I'm much more offended about the fact that you're having your wedding on a Sunday for no reason than the fact that it's a "PPD" (ugh I hate that phrase so much. So sexist and classist!)

Honestly, I don't care a bit about the moment you become eligible for each others insurance as long as I'm seeing a ceremony that is important to you to start your married life. I do care that you've chosen an inconvenient date for your "vision". 

??? what? The P can stand for "prince" or "princess" if you're really going to look that hard into it. Also, I'm sorry, by saying PPD are we offending all the royals out there? I'll make sure I go apologize to my copy of The Princess Diaries when I get home tonight. 

It's classist because it's a judgment on who does and does not "deserve" a wedding. It doesn't apply to every situation and I think people here try to apply it with a broad brush. Like when someone doesn't like one aspect of their wedding and wants a "redo" for pictures or whatever it's applicable, but you also see a lot of people who had to get married quickly (often for financial reasons or to do with military benefits) and everyone says "not everyone is entitled to a wedding" to imply that they *deserve* their wedding for not having a financial emergency or for having "the foresight to plan" (i.e. more money). That, IMO, is classist.

Also, acting like any given couple will take no meaning in a public ceremony if they've already had a civil ceremony is disingenuous.

I really dislike the phrase. Not every situation is a "pretty princess (you know it means princess) day" because the bride wants pictures and I think it's an unfair phrase that immediately assigns judgment to something that may or may not deserve it.

PPDs are literally the exact opposite of what you are saying. You are saying that if someone wants military benefits, it is OK to "just" have a quick wedding, but their REAL wedding is when they can dress up and have photos. THAT is classist.


The view on TK is all it takes to be married is a license, officiant and two consenting adults. Anything on top of that is a choice that is not necessary. But the day you have your legally binding ceremony is your wedding. Playing dress up afterwards for photos or because you thing you "deserve" a party is spoilt and entitled. 

When you conflate what is actually needed for a legally binding marriage and what the wedding-idustrial complex deems as a marriage, you are saying that simple elopements, city hall, registry office, etc are not "real".

No one is entitled to a party.  

MrsAitch

marriedhamstermom said:

ABeautifulJourney said:

marriedhamstermom said:

I'm sorry but of all the bad reasons to have a PPD (nope there isn't a single good one imho), having one because you want your wedding to fall on a certain date is probably the dumbest. I don't understand why dates are so important to people. When you get married that date will become just as important to you as any other date. Also why does your FI care if you wear heels? I find that really weird...

I'm about eight inches shorter than he is, so I think he's looking forward to me not being at armpit level! 

I never said it was a good reason. But it's one of the few things he's requested, and I don't want to summarily tell him his feelings are unimportant because the Etiquette Police might get us. 

DH is a full foot taller than me so I get the awkward height difference it's just he would never tell me to wear heels, I choose to wear them sometimes b/c I like them but he never mentioned a word about how I should wear them for the wedding... To each is own I guess and if you aren't bothered by it that's great it just seems strange to me.

My husband is also a little over a foot taller than me and has never requested that I wear heels. I wore 1" wedges on our wedding day and our kiss at the end of the ceremony and the first dance were both just fine. That said, I literally never wear heels normally either so it would've been pretty weird for me to wear them on our wedding day (and painful--I was on my feet all day!). If you like wearing heels, I guess go ahead, but your fiancé requesting that you wear heels because of a relatively normal height difference between you two seems odd to me. What if your feet start to hurt?

Also, I don't think I would be attending a wedding on a Sunday unless it was for a very, VERY close friend or family member. In what way do you think a Sunday wedding would be easier for people than a Saturday one?

And if you're not a member of a church now and not planning on joining one after your wedding, I don't see why you would get married in the church.

I've also never understood why people care so much about a specific date when wedding planning. We just picked one that worked for us and our VIPs, was at the time of year we wanted to have it, and our venue had available. Plus, if you really want to get married on Guy Fawkes day, it's on a Saturday this year, so you could get married then. 

I'm just so confused by everything in your post TBH.

lembaslover

LondonLisa said:

KahluaKoala said:

PamBeesly524 said:

KahluaKoala said:

Honestly, I'm much more offended about the fact that you're having your wedding on a Sunday for no reason than the fact that it's a "PPD" (ugh I hate that phrase so much. So sexist and classist!)

Honestly, I don't care a bit about the moment you become eligible for each others insurance as long as I'm seeing a ceremony that is important to you to start your married life. I do care that you've chosen an inconvenient date for your "vision". 

??? what? The P can stand for "prince" or "princess" if you're really going to look that hard into it. Also, I'm sorry, by saying PPD are we offending all the royals out there? I'll make sure I go apologize to my copy of The Princess Diaries when I get home tonight. 

It's classist because it's a judgment on who does and does not "deserve" a wedding. It doesn't apply to every situation and I think people here try to apply it with a broad brush. Like when someone doesn't like one aspect of their wedding and wants a "redo" for pictures or whatever it's applicable, but you also see a lot of people who had to get married quickly (often for financial reasons or to do with military benefits) and everyone says "not everyone is entitled to a wedding" to imply that they *deserve* their wedding for not having a financial emergency or for having "the foresight to plan" (i.e. more money). That, IMO, is classist.

Also, acting like any given couple will take no meaning in a public ceremony if they've already had a civil ceremony is disingenuous.

I really dislike the phrase. Not every situation is a "pretty princess (you know it means princess) day" because the bride wants pictures and I think it's an unfair phrase that immediately assigns judgment to something that may or may not deserve it.

PPDs are literally the exact opposite of what you are saying. You are saying that if someone wants military benefits, it is OK to "just" have a quick wedding, but their REAL wedding is when they can dress up and have photos. THAT is classist.


The view on TK is all it takes to be married is a license, officiant and two consenting adults. Anything on top of that is a choice that is not necessary. But the day you have your legally binding ceremony is your wedding. Playing dress up afterwards for photos or because you thing you "deserve" a party is spoilt and entitled. 

When you conflate what is actually needed for a legally binding marriage and what the wedding-idustrial complex deems as a marriage, you are saying that simple elopements, city hall, registry office, etc are not "real".

No one is entitled to a party.  

@KahluaKoala I think you're confusing the words wedding and party. EVERYONE is entitled to a wedding which involves 2 willing participants, a license, and an officiant (maybe witnesses depending on the state). NO ONE is entitled to a party which is a big fancy reception.

I'm sorry but if you choose to get married early for whatever reason no you don't deserve to have a big party and play dress-up and reenact a ceremony and honestly to me they are gross and belittle the marriage that you are already in. It's like saying that your marriage didn't mean enough until you got to put on the big puffy dress (or tux if that's your style) and have your friends and family ooh and aww over you.

That being said if you want a celebration of marriage party where you wear normal clothes and there is no reenactment or  first dances etc... that is ok. 

And finally everyone has financial or beneficial reasons to get married, if they didn't no one would bother with legal ceremonies so there is no good reason for getting married early for the benefits and then having a fake ceremony later. Make the choice either get married early and don't have a party or wait and have the wedding you want. Either option is fine and a personal choice but you can't do both. 

aurianna

OP, I do agree with the others that if getting married in the church just isn't that important, then don't bother. If you have a change of heart years later I think it would be much easier to get a convalidation with "We just weren't that religious at the time but now we have a strong desire to come back to the church" than it would be to get one in a few months with "well, my fiance really wanted to get marred on GF day...". And if you never have a change of heart, then no big!
If it IS important than definitely take some of my and PPs previous suggestions on how to find a place that will make it work for that Sunday.
Good luck!

LD1970

ABeautifulJourney said:

LD1970 said:

If you do it in 2016, November 5 is a Saturday.

That has crossed my mind, but we'd prefer a slightly longer engagement. We've only been together about six months this time around (though we've known each other thirteen years). He also travels a lot for work, and with him having just started a new job we wanted to have a little more time accrued there before being all "WOO HONEYMOON." 

This is not my first rodeo as far as engagement/wedding planning, but there seem to be a lot more calves to rope this time around. 

Everything everyone else has said aside, lots of people delay honeymoons due to work.  You can get married November 5, 2016, and go on your honeymoon whenever it works for you.

holyguacamole79

LD1970 said:

ABeautifulJourney said:

LD1970 said:

If you do it in 2016, November 5 is a Saturday.

That has crossed my mind, but we'd prefer a slightly longer engagement. We've only been together about six months this time around (though we've known each other thirteen years). He also travels a lot for work, and with him having just started a new job we wanted to have a little more time accrued there before being all "WOO HONEYMOON." 

This is not my first rodeo as far as engagement/wedding planning, but there seem to be a lot more calves to rope this time around. 

Everything everyone else has said aside, lots of people delay honeymoons due to work.  You can get married November 5, 2016, and go on your honeymoon whenever it works for you.

When we got married, my H had been at his job for less than a month.  We took an overnight "mini moon" and had our real honeymoon on our anniversary.  Everything worked out fine.

OurWildKingdom

holyguacamole79 said:

LD1970 said:

ABeautifulJourney said:

LD1970 said:

If you do it in 2016, November 5 is a Saturday.

That has crossed my mind, but we'd prefer a slightly longer engagement. We've only been together about six months this time around (though we've known each other thirteen years). He also travels a lot for work, and with him having just started a new job we wanted to have a little more time accrued there before being all "WOO HONEYMOON." 

This is not my first rodeo as far as engagement/wedding planning, but there seem to be a lot more calves to rope this time around. 

Everything everyone else has said aside, lots of people delay honeymoons due to work.  You can get married November 5, 2016, and go on your honeymoon whenever it works for you.

When we got married, my H had been at his job for less than a month.  We took an overnight "mini moon" and had our real honeymoon on our anniversary.  Everything worked out fine.

I'm taking the Thursday and Friday before and the Monday after our wedding off. FW is having major surgery early next year, and I want to take at least three weeks off to take care of her. So no honeymoon for us yet either.

FutureWooly

OurWildKingdom said:

holyguacamole79 said:

LD1970 said:

ABeautifulJourney said:

LD1970 said:

If you do it in 2016, November 5 is a Saturday.

That has crossed my mind, but we'd prefer a slightly longer engagement. We've only been together about six months this time around (though we've known each other thirteen years). He also travels a lot for work, and with him having just started a new job we wanted to have a little more time accrued there before being all "WOO HONEYMOON." 

This is not my first rodeo as far as engagement/wedding planning, but there seem to be a lot more calves to rope this time around. 

Everything everyone else has said aside, lots of people delay honeymoons due to work.  You can get married November 5, 2016, and go on your honeymoon whenever it works for you.

When we got married, my H had been at his job for less than a month.  We took an overnight "mini moon" and had our real honeymoon on our anniversary.  Everything worked out fine.

I'm taking the Thursday and Friday before and the Monday after our wedding off. FW is having major surgery early next year, and I want to take at least three weeks off to take care of her. So no honeymoon for us yet either.

We're getting married in July and doing a 3 day "mini moon" since I tore my ACL six weeks ago and am going in for surgery 8 days after the wedding. My options were surgery this week and have limited mobility for the wedding or put off surgery until after and postpone our original honeymoon plans. Being able to enjoy the wedding was more important to me so we're doing our original Honeymoon plans for our Anniversary next summer.

mntravelingmama

I find it REALLY strange that your FI would be so fixated on this date that it would actually affect potential wedding plans.  On the other hand, if you're both "semi-lapsed" Catholics, would a marriage in the Church be meaningful to you and would you plan to reignite your Catholicism and raise children as Catholics?  If not, it seems a little hypocritical.

mollybarker11

You and your fiancé should both take some time to think about whether you want to remain in good standing with the Catholic Church. There is nothing wrong with preferring a civil ceremony over a sacramental one if your heart is not really in Catholicism anymore! Read up on exactly what it would mean to no longer be in good standing, and determine whether it would have a negative impact on your lives. As @aurianna mentioned, you may want to return to the Church in later years and can attempt a convalidation then, but it's not the type of thing you should be anticipating while planning a secular wedding.


If you determine you're more lapsed than not, then you're good to go with the civil ceremony & brunch on Guy Fawkes Day. <- This is my vote based on what you've said here so far!

If you determine that it's more important for your marriage to be recognized by the Catholic church, you either hunt down someone who will perform the sacrament on a Sunday or have the wedding (ceremony+reception!) another day.

If you do choose to have a sacramental ceremony and then a civil reenactment you must be upfront about it and expect people invited to either event to side-eye or not attend at all.

photokitty

You can get married in the church on a Sunday, just during the regular mass. My understanding is that the priest can't refuse to marry you on a Sunday, within reason, if you meet the requirements. Marriage is a sacrament, Catholics in good standing who meet the requirements should not be denied the sacrament. They also can't (don't usually) charge if the sacrament is part of the regular Sunday mass. However, you have to use the readings scheduled in the liturgical year, you won't process in, you'll sit in a pew, like any other Sunday, none of the pomp and circumstance. You just approach the alter at the appropriate time and receive the sacrament of marriage. 

You have to decide what's important - date, vision or faith. I don't understand how anyone can convince themselves that the day they are legally married is not actually their anniversary. (except same sex couples who married prior to gay marriage being legal, of course...but otherwise, come on you got married! Who you trying to kid???)

SP29

LD1970 said:

ABeautifulJourney said:

LD1970 said:

If you do it in 2016, November 5 is a Saturday.

That has crossed my mind, but we'd prefer a slightly longer engagement. We've only been together about six months this time around (though we've known each other thirteen years). He also travels a lot for work, and with him having just started a new job we wanted to have a little more time accrued there before being all "WOO HONEYMOON." 

This is not my first rodeo as far as engagement/wedding planning, but there seem to be a lot more calves to rope this time around. 

Everything everyone else has said aside, lots of people delay honeymoons due to work.  You can get married November 5, 2016, and go on your honeymoon whenever it works for you.

Our wedding took place in January, and we didn't go on our honeymoon until October. We stayed in a hotel on our wedding night, then returned to sleep on an air mattress in my dad's basement family room for 3 days until we returned home.

ABeautifulJourney

Thank you all for the advice! We've pretty much decided at this point to do the church wedding and will be setting up a meeting with the pastor at the church I attend. We've been parishioners for a few years but it hasn't been that "at home" feeling the way the one I attended for about ten or twelve years did. Yay small-town politics.