Etiquette

EDIT: What does the label "wedding" mean to you?

Knottie1459048711Knottie1459048711 Japan member
10 Comments
edited April 27 in Etiquette
Labels are confusing but important to understand. When it comes to the word "wedding", what does it mean to you? (EDIT: Original name was click-baity and confusing, so this is to clarify) (For the third option, I am aware that a religion cannot "legally" recognize marriage, but instead more so along the lines of your god(s) recognizing your marriage)

EDIT: What does the label "wedding" mean to you? 58 votes

A day where your family and friends are able to celebrate your union
6% 4 votes
A day where the government legally recognizes your union
39% 23 votes
A day where your religion legally recognizes your union
3% 2 votes
A day where you and your loved one celebrate your union
10% 6 votes
A day where you are the focus of all the attention
0% 0 votes
A day where everyone gets to look their best and celebrate
0% 0 votes
More than one of the above mentioned
36% 21 votes
None of the above
0% 0 votes
Your own opinion
3% 2 votes
"I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request.... It means no." -Alistair, Dragon Age Origins

«13456

Re: EDIT: What does the label "wedding" mean to you?

  • For me it was 1,2 & 3; and we planned accordingly. For some people 1&2 are the most important. For others just 2. But if more than one of these things on the list are important to you then you should plan your wedding so that they all happen simultaneously. 
    lovesclimbingOurWildKingdom
  • I don't think it's right to tell someone how they can or can't celebrate their marriage. 

    Having said that, I would say it's wrong to expect other people to pay or contribute to more than one event. But if the couple is paying for it, it's "ok" for them to have as many ceremonies, as many times as they want. 
    [Deleted User]




  • I've been hearing a lot of back and forth about this and a lot of negativity towards "Pretty Princess Day", so I want to hear from all of you: what is a wedding to you? If you can, share your own thoughts about what a wedding means to you.




    JIC - I also included the original poll


    I answered choice 2, when the government legally recognizes your union.  Your question was phrased awkwardly, because as long as you're not deceiving guests and re-enacting anything it's "okay".  But by definition, if there's not a legally binding union involved, it's not a marriage ceremony.  My H and I personally combined choices 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 in one day.





  • I picked more than one of the above but I think the set up is misleading. If you're already legally married in a country when you could have been religiously married at the same time but skipped it, I don't think you get another ceremony. If you're already married I don't think you get another ceremony just do you can celebrate your union with friends and family. 

    A wedding ceremony is multiple things on this list, but you don't get multiple ceremonies. 


    This. It is not okay to pretend to get married if you already are, and it is even more not okay to deceive your supposed loved ones by doing so. The only way I find it acceptable to have a ceremony in which you do not get married is if it is at present illegal for you to do so in your home country/state. Happily, this is no longer the case for LGBT folks in the US (in spite of stupid state congressmen in my state trying to reverse that).

    As an example, one of my mom's coworkers had a commitment ceremony with her wife a year or more before the Obergefell decision. They did end up having a private legal ceremony after, but I certainly did not and would not begrudge them a 'fake' wedding when they could not have had a legal one in our state.
    image
    OurWildKingdomshort+sassyahoywedding
  • redoryxredoryx member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Second Anniversary First Answer
    OP, out of curiosity, what is the motivation behind your poll?
    image
    PrettyGirlLostOurWildKingdom
  • bride2be1028bride2be1028 member
    10 Comments
    edited April 21
    I do understand the point about not lying to or deceiving people, I think that itself is wrong.

    Someone might want to have different ceremonies if they come from two different religions.  Or if they have families that are far away or an important family member who is sick and can't travel.



  • The phrasing of this is so odd. When is it "OK to have a wedding ceremony"? The answer is when you have a willing and legally able couple, and all the other necessary parts in place to change the status of the couple from single to married. Period. 

    A wedding, which involves a ceremony and if any guests are invited a reception, is an event where a couple show up single and leave married. 

    The ONLY ambiguity is if there are conflicts between a legal event and a religious event--I can understand if some very religious people get legally married at the courthouse and then later have a religious ceremony that they consider their wedding ceremony, for instance, only because they themselves did not consider themselves married until the religious ceremony even if the law did.

    This is not to be confused with the idea that a couple can have a party whenever they damn well please, and celebrate anything they choose to celebrate at any time with anyone they care to invite. But if they're not showing up single and leaving married, then it's not a wedding!




    short+sassy
  • SP29SP29 member
    2500 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    I chose "A day where you and your loved one celebrate your union"- because to me, that's what marriage is, you and another adult, choosing to be married.

    But here in Canada, that is a legal ceremony- wherever it happens, and whoever it happens with (i.e. guests or not). So I also wanted to pick "more than one of the above". I agree with Starmoon's comment- a ceremony can encompass multiple things, but you can't have multiple wedding ceremonies.

    The day DH and I had our legal wedding, we invited our friends and family, celebrated our union, and looked darn good doing it.

    Have all the parties you want, but there is no purpose to having more than one ceremony- you're already married. Having another ceremony doesn't make you more married, and if you invite guests to a second event, they aren't watching you get married, so what's the point?

    At the very least, please do not lie about it. Tell your guests you are already married and are doing another ceremony so they can make the informed choice to attend or not.
    OurWildKingdomsparklepants41eileenrobInLoveInQueens




  • MandyMost said:


    The phrasing of this is so odd. When is it "OK to have a wedding ceremony"? The answer is when you have a willing and legally able couple, and all the other necessary parts in place to change the status of the couple from single to married. Period. 

    A wedding, which involves a ceremony and if any guests are invited a reception, is an event where a couple show up single and leave married. 

    The ONLY ambiguity is if there are conflicts between a legal event and a religious event--I can understand if some very religious people get legally married at the courthouse and then later have a religious ceremony that they consider their wedding ceremony, for instance, only because they themselves did not consider themselves married until the religious ceremony even if the law did.

    This is not to be confused with the idea that a couple can have a party whenever they damn well please, and celebrate anything they choose to celebrate at any time with anyone they care to invite. But if they're not showing up single and leaving married, then it's not a wedding!








    Isn't that the excuse most PPD brides use? "We got married, but it wasn't 'real' until we had a big elaborate wedding." Like @LondonLisa said, it's a binary state, you're either married or you're not married. 

    I can't think of a reason one would need to get married at the courthouse and have a religious ceremony later and it not be a PPD. 


    I think there's a difference between people "not counting" the legal event and then having a PPD later, vs. a devoutly religious couple who think of the legal event as simply signing some papers, and then have a formal religious ceremony later, and only AFTER this religious ceremony do they consider themselves married. I really think this only applies to super-religious people...I'm picturing the people you see on TV shows that have arranged marriages and/or have never kissed before getting married. 
  • DrillSergeantCatDrillSergeantCat Oklahoma City, OK member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary First Answer

    MandyMost said:








    MandyMost said:



    The phrasing of this is so odd. When is it "OK to have a wedding ceremony"? The answer is when you have a willing and legally able couple, and all the other necessary parts in place to change the status of the couple from single to married. Period. 

    A wedding, which involves a ceremony and if any guests are invited a reception, is an event where a couple show up single and leave married. 

    The ONLY ambiguity is if there are conflicts between a legal event and a religious event--I can understand if some very religious people get legally married at the courthouse and then later have a religious ceremony that they consider their wedding ceremony, for instance, only because they themselves did not consider themselves married until the religious ceremony even if the law did.

    This is not to be confused with the idea that a couple can have a party whenever they damn well please, and celebrate anything they choose to celebrate at any time with anyone they care to invite. But if they're not showing up single and leaving married, then it's not a wedding!










    Isn't that the excuse most PPD brides use? "We got married, but it wasn't 'real' until we had a big elaborate wedding." Like @LondonLisa said, it's a binary state, you're either married or you're not married. 

    I can't think of a reason one would need to get married at the courthouse and have a religious ceremony later and it not be a PPD. 




    I think there's a difference between people "not counting" the legal event and then having a PPD later, vs. a devoutly religious couple who think of the legal event as simply signing some papers, and then have a formal religious ceremony later, and only AFTER this religious ceremony do they consider themselves married. I really think this only applies to super-religious people...I'm picturing the people you see on TV shows that have arranged marriages and/or have never kissed before getting married. 


    Okay, but the signing of legal documents happens at the religious ceremony, too. 
  • lovesclimbinglovesclimbing Alaska member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary First Answer




    MandyMost said:












    MandyMost said:




    The phrasing of this is so odd. When is it "OK to have a wedding ceremony"? The answer is when you have a willing and legally able couple, and all the other necessary parts in place to change the status of the couple from single to married. Period. 

    A wedding, which involves a ceremony and if any guests are invited a reception, is an event where a couple show up single and leave married. 

    The ONLY ambiguity is if there are conflicts between a legal event and a religious event--I can understand if some very religious people get legally married at the courthouse and then later have a religious ceremony that they consider their wedding ceremony, for instance, only because they themselves did not consider themselves married until the religious ceremony even if the law did.

    This is not to be confused with the idea that a couple can have a party whenever they damn well please, and celebrate anything they choose to celebrate at any time with anyone they care to invite. But if they're not showing up single and leaving married, then it's not a wedding!












    Isn't that the excuse most PPD brides use? "We got married, but it wasn't 'real' until we had a big elaborate wedding." Like @LondonLisa said, it's a binary state, you're either married or you're not married. 

    I can't think of a reason one would need to get married at the courthouse and have a religious ceremony later and it not be a PPD. 






    I think there's a difference between people "not counting" the legal event and then having a PPD later, vs. a devoutly religious couple who think of the legal event as simply signing some papers, and then have a formal religious ceremony later, and only AFTER this religious ceremony do they consider themselves married. I really think this only applies to super-religious people...I'm picturing the people you see on TV shows that have arranged marriages and/or have never kissed before getting married. 




    Okay, but the signing of legal documents happens at the religious ceremony, too. 


    I can see giving this a pass in certain very limited circumstances as well. I have an acquaintance who "courted" her husband as opposed to dated and got "betrothed" rather than engaged. Back in Bible times, betrothal was a serious business that you couldn't just break off if you decided not to get married like an engagement nowadays. There were legal and other ramifications to ending it. They and their families wanted it more like back then, so when they got engaged/betrothed, they got legally married. They did it at the courthouse, and then had an engagement period like a lot of people, planned a wedding, and then "got married."  They lived as if they weren't married - separately, didn't use it as "oh, we can have sex now!," no getting on each other's insurance, etc. Basically, they weren't doing it ahead of time to get anything. 

    I think it's silly, but I do give it a pass. But yea, this applies to very, very, very few people. 










  • MandyMost said:
















    MandyMost said:





    The phrasing of this is so odd. When is it "OK to have a wedding ceremony"? The answer is when you have a willing and legally able couple, and all the other necessary parts in place to change the status of the couple from single to married. Period. 

    A wedding, which involves a ceremony and if any guests are invited a reception, is an event where a couple show up single and leave married. 

    The ONLY ambiguity is if there are conflicts between a legal event and a religious event--I can understand if some very religious people get legally married at the courthouse and then later have a religious ceremony that they consider their wedding ceremony, for instance, only because they themselves did not consider themselves married until the religious ceremony even if the law did.

    This is not to be confused with the idea that a couple can have a party whenever they damn well please, and celebrate anything they choose to celebrate at any time with anyone they care to invite. But if they're not showing up single and leaving married, then it's not a wedding!














    Isn't that the excuse most PPD brides use? "We got married, but it wasn't 'real' until we had a big elaborate wedding." Like @LondonLisa said, it's a binary state, you're either married or you're not married. 

    I can't think of a reason one would need to get married at the courthouse and have a religious ceremony later and it not be a PPD. 








    I think there's a difference between people "not counting" the legal event and then having a PPD later, vs. a devoutly religious couple who think of the legal event as simply signing some papers, and then have a formal religious ceremony later, and only AFTER this religious ceremony do they consider themselves married. I really think this only applies to super-religious people...I'm picturing the people you see on TV shows that have arranged marriages and/or have never kissed before getting married. 






    Okay, but the signing of legal documents happens at the religious ceremony, too. 




    I can see giving this a pass in certain very limited circumstances as well. I have an acquaintance who "courted" her husband as opposed to dated and got "betrothed" rather than engaged. Back in Bible times, betrothal was a serious business that you couldn't just break off if you decided not to get married like an engagement nowadays. There were legal and other ramifications to ending it. They and their families wanted it more like back then, so when they got engaged/betrothed, they got legally married. They did it at the courthouse, and then had an engagement period like a lot of people, planned a wedding, and then "got married."  They lived as if they weren't married - separately, didn't use it as "oh, we can have sex now!," no getting on each other's insurance, etc. Basically, they weren't doing it ahead of time to get anything. 

    I think it's silly, but I do give it a pass. But yea, this applies to very, very, very few people. 


    This is EXACTLY the type of exception I was referring to! 
  • flantasticflantastic The Midwest member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its Third Anniversary 5 Answers
    edited April 24









    MandyMost said:







































    MandyMost said:




































    MandyMost said:










    The phrasing of this is so odd. When is it "OK to have a wedding ceremony"? The answer is when you have a willing and legally able couple, and all the other necessary parts in place to change the status of the couple from single to married. Period. 

    A wedding, which involves a ceremony and if any guests are invited a reception, is an event where a couple show up single and leave married. 

    The ONLY ambiguity is if there are conflicts between a legal event and a religious event--I can understand if some very religious people get legally married at the courthouse and then later have a religious ceremony that they consider their wedding ceremony, for instance, only because they themselves did not consider themselves married until the religious ceremony even if the law did.

    This is not to be confused with the idea that a couple can have a party whenever they damn well please, and celebrate anything they choose to celebrate at any time with anyone they care to invite. But if they're not showing up single and leaving married, then it's not a wedding!
























    Isn't that the excuse most PPD brides use? "We got married, but it wasn't 'real' until we had a big elaborate wedding." Like @LondonLisa said, it's a binary state, you're either married or you're not married. 

    I can't think of a reason one would need to get married at the courthouse and have a religious ceremony later and it not be a PPD. 


















    I think there's a difference between people "not counting" the legal event and then having a PPD later, vs. a devoutly religious couple who think of the legal event as simply signing some papers, and then have a formal religious ceremony later, and only AFTER this religious ceremony do they consider themselves married. I really think this only applies to super-religious people...I'm picturing the people you see on TV shows that have arranged marriages and/or have never kissed before getting married. 
















    Okay, but the signing of legal documents happens at the religious ceremony, too. 














    I can see giving this a pass in certain very limited circumstances as well. I have an acquaintance who "courted" her husband as opposed to dated and got "betrothed" rather than engaged. Back in Bible times, betrothal was a serious business that you couldn't just break off if you decided not to get married like an engagement nowadays. There were legal and other ramifications to ending it. They and their families wanted it more like back then, so when they got engaged/betrothed, they got legally married. They did it at the courthouse, and then had an engagement period like a lot of people, planned a wedding, and then "got married."  They lived as if they weren't married - separately, didn't use it as "oh, we can have sex now!," no getting on each other's insurance, etc. Basically, they weren't doing it ahead of time to get anything. 

    I think it's silly, but I do give it a pass. But yea, this applies to very, very, very few people. 












    This is EXACTLY the type of exception I was referring to! 










    But in the US, regardless of the religious ceremony, doesn't one need to bring a license and have it signed by the officiant? 

    ETA: if they go to a courthouse and get married, then they are married. I don't really care what they consider themselves, if one can't call off the 'religious wedding celebration' without getting divorced, they're married. Why do they get a pass? They're married, they know they are. There is no way two consenting adults can go through a registry office wedding without understanding the implications. Why does belonging to a fundamentalist cult give you a pass? 

    To tbe bolded, this was because women were property to be exchanged rather than human beings with agency and rights. I don't think any woman should be supporting behaviours like this. 




    Yes, the implications are a legal divorce. But I disagree that they know they're married. Sure, they do know they're legally married. If other people want to put all the weight on that and consider the religious wedding a sham, fine, but they take it seriously. They didn't get married to get any of the benefits of marriage, just to create a certain higher level of commitment to the process. Like earnest money in buying a house. I'm sure divorce is off the table for them once the religious wedding happens. They're just upping the ante in different ways.

    Anniversary

    charlotte989875
  • edited April 24



















    MandyMost said:



















































    MandyMost said:












































    MandyMost said:












    The phrasing of this is so odd. When is it "OK to have a wedding ceremony"? The answer is when you have a willing and legally able couple, and all the other necessary parts in place to change the status of the couple from single to married. Period. 

    A wedding, which involves a ceremony and if any guests are invited a reception, is an event where a couple show up single and leave married. 

    The ONLY ambiguity is if there are conflicts between a legal event and a religious event--I can understand if some very religious people get legally married at the courthouse and then later have a religious ceremony that they consider their wedding ceremony, for instance, only because they themselves did not consider themselves married until the religious ceremony even if the law did.

    This is not to be confused with the idea that a couple can have a party whenever they damn well please, and celebrate anything they choose to celebrate at any time with anyone they care to invite. But if they're not showing up single and leaving married, then it's not a wedding!




























    Isn't that the excuse most PPD brides use? "We got married, but it wasn't 'real' until we had a big elaborate wedding." Like @LondonLisa said, it's a binary state, you're either married or you're not married. 

    I can't think of a reason one would need to get married at the courthouse and have a religious ceremony later and it not be a PPD. 






















    I think there's a difference between people "not counting" the legal event and then having a PPD later, vs. a devoutly religious couple who think of the legal event as simply signing some papers, and then have a formal religious ceremony later, and only AFTER this religious ceremony do they consider themselves married. I really think this only applies to super-religious people...I'm picturing the people you see on TV shows that have arranged marriages and/or have never kissed before getting married. 




















    Okay, but the signing of legal documents happens at the religious ceremony, too. 


















    I can see giving this a pass in certain very limited circumstances as well. I have an acquaintance who "courted" her husband as opposed to dated and got "betrothed" rather than engaged. Back in Bible times, betrothal was a serious business that you couldn't just break off if you decided not to get married like an engagement nowadays. There were legal and other ramifications to ending it. They and their families wanted it more like back then, so when they got engaged/betrothed, they got legally married. They did it at the courthouse, and then had an engagement period like a lot of people, planned a wedding, and then "got married."  They lived as if they weren't married - separately, didn't use it as "oh, we can have sex now!," no getting on each other's insurance, etc. Basically, they weren't doing it ahead of time to get anything. 

    I think it's silly, but I do give it a pass. But yea, this applies to very, very, very few people. 
















    This is EXACTLY the type of exception I was referring to! 














    But in the US, regardless of the religious ceremony, doesn't one need to bring a license and have it signed by the officiant? 

    ETA: if they go to a courthouse and get married, then they are married. I don't really care what they consider themselves, if one can't call off the 'religious wedding celebration' without getting divorced, they're married. Why do they get a pass? They're married, they know they are. There is no way two consenting adults can go through a registry office wedding without understanding the implications. Why does belonging to a fundamentalist cult give you a pass? 

    To tbe bolded, this was because women were property to be exchanged rather than human beings with agency and rights. I don't think any woman should be supporting behaviours like this. 








    Yes, the implications are a legal divorce. But I disagree that they know they're married. Sure, they do know they're legally married. If other people want to put all the weight on that and consider the religious wedding a sham, fine, but they take it seriously. They didn't get married to get any of the benefits of marriage, just to create a certain higher level of commitment to the process. Like earnest money in buying a house. I'm sure divorce is off the table for them once the religious wedding happens. They're just upping the ante in different ways.




    Uh you get your earnest money back if the deal falls apart, for whatever reason. So no, not the same thing at all. 

    ETA: let me rephrase - maybe not for *whatever* reason, but you do get that money back. If you don't, you made a shitty contract that your agent should have warned you about. 
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    image
    InLoveInQueensSTARMOON44
  • lovesclimbinglovesclimbing Alaska member
    2500 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary First Answer












































    MandyMost said:





































































    MandyMost said:
























































    MandyMost said:















    The phrasing of this is so odd. When is it "OK to have a wedding ceremony"? The answer is when you have a willing and legally able couple, and all the other necessary parts in place to change the status of the couple from single to married. Period. 

    A wedding, which involves a ceremony and if any guests are invited a reception, is an event where a couple show up single and leave married. 

    The ONLY ambiguity is if there are conflicts between a legal event and a religious event--I can understand if some very religious people get legally married at the courthouse and then later have a religious ceremony that they consider their wedding ceremony, for instance, only because they themselves did not consider themselves married until the religious ceremony even if the law did.

    This is not to be confused with the idea that a couple can have a party whenever they damn well please, and celebrate anything they choose to celebrate at any time with anyone they care to invite. But if they're not showing up single and leaving married, then it's not a wedding!


































    Isn't that the excuse most PPD brides use? "We got married, but it wasn't 'real' until we had a big elaborate wedding." Like @LondonLisa said, it's a binary state, you're either married or you're not married. 

    I can't think of a reason one would need to get married at the courthouse and have a religious ceremony later and it not be a PPD. 




























    I think there's a difference between people "not counting" the legal event and then having a PPD later, vs. a devoutly religious couple who think of the legal event as simply signing some papers, and then have a formal religious ceremony later, and only AFTER this religious ceremony do they consider themselves married. I really think this only applies to super-religious people...I'm picturing the people you see on TV shows that have arranged marriages and/or have never kissed before getting married. 


























    Okay, but the signing of legal documents happens at the religious ceremony, too. 
























    I can see giving this a pass in certain very limited circumstances as well. I have an acquaintance who "courted" her husband as opposed to dated and got "betrothed" rather than engaged. Back in Bible times, betrothal was a serious business that you couldn't just break off if you decided not to get married like an engagement nowadays. There were legal and other ramifications to ending it. They and their families wanted it more like back then, so when they got engaged/betrothed, they got legally married. They did it at the courthouse, and then had an engagement period like a lot of people, planned a wedding, and then "got married."  They lived as if they weren't married - separately, didn't use it as "oh, we can have sex now!," no getting on each other's insurance, etc. Basically, they weren't doing it ahead of time to get anything. 

    I think it's silly, but I do give it a pass. But yea, this applies to very, very, very few people. 






















    This is EXACTLY the type of exception I was referring to! 




















    But in the US, regardless of the religious ceremony, doesn't one need to bring a license and have it signed by the officiant? 

    ETA: if they go to a courthouse and get married, then they are married. I don't really care what they consider themselves, if one can't call off the 'religious wedding celebration' without getting divorced, they're married. Why do they get a pass? They're married, they know they are. There is no way two consenting adults can go through a registry office wedding without understanding the implications. Why does belonging to a fundamentalist cult give you a pass? 

    To tbe bolded, this was because women were property to be exchanged rather than human beings with agency and rights. I don't think any woman should be supporting behaviours like this. 














    Yes, the implications are a legal divorce. But I disagree that they know they're married. Sure, they do know they're legally married. If other people want to put all the weight on that and consider the religious wedding a sham, fine, but they take it seriously. They didn't get married to get any of the benefits of marriage, just to create a certain higher level of commitment to the process. Like earnest money in buying a house. I'm sure divorce is off the table for them once the religious wedding happens. They're just upping the ante in different ways.










    Uh you get your earnest money back if the deal falls apart, for whatever reason. So no, not the same thing at all. 





    STUCK IN A BOX

    Also, getting married isn't a commercial transaction. By nearly every metric, they are married. It's not that I doubt that they may be thinking something different, but why does this case get a pass in your book? How religious must one be in order for you to say it's ok to get married before the 'wedding'? What's the scale? I just don't think being religious means you get to deceive people or anyone should get a pass based on how fundamental they are. That's a double standard. They can think whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact that by nearly every social standard, they're married. 


    I don't sideeye it for several reasons. The two biggest are that, one, as far as I'm aware, no one was deceived. Everyone knew how and why they were doing it. Second, they didn't get married ahead of their religious wedding for any other reason then to make their "betrothal" more binding. They weren't using it to take advantage of government tax breaks, they weren't using it to get on each other's insurance, they weren't using it to get the military to pay for their move, they weren't using it to have sex sooner, they weren't using it to make their parents or family comfortable with them living together, or using it for any of the other myriad reasons we see brides saying on here to justify their "real" wedding/PPD later on. 

    I am am curious what you mean by "nearly every social standard." The way I see it, they were not married by nearly every social standard. Yes, they were married by the standard that matters probably the most, the legal document, but by social standards, no they weren't. They weren't living together, they were not presenting as a married couple, they weren't having sex, they weren't making joint decisions beyond the sort of ones you'd expect any engaged couple to make, they didn't have combined finances, they didn't change either last name, etc. I'm not saying every married couple meets or should meet all of these social standards, just that these are some of the things people tend to think of married couples doing. For them, nothing changed after they got legally married. Their lives went on as any other engaged couple. 

    In order for it to get a pass in my book, you have to be about at that ^^^ level. It's not good enough to just say the religious wedding is the most important so I can have a PPD because they can happen at the same time. 

    MandyMost
«13456
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards