Getting married before destination wedding?

Bonobo528

My fiance' and I are planning on a destination wedding at Moon Palace in Cancun. I've been reading posts about other brides getting married before going to their destination wedding for insurance or legal reasons. Can someone please explain to me the benefits of doing it this way?

Thanks!
Erin

Jells2dot0

The only time it really makes sense to do that is if you cannot legally marry in the destination you chose. You can legally marry in Cancun, with all of the appropriate testing/paperwork that your wedding coordinator will help you with. Marrying before your wedding in Cancun means that your wedding in Cancun won't actually be a wedding and it's not fair for your guests to spend all of that money to see a ceremony that won't be the actual wedding. If for some reason you have to get married ahead of your Moon Palace date (ex: you lose your job and want your FI's insurance to cover you), it would be best to inform your guests that it would not be your legal marriage and I'd forgo all of the usual wedding trappings- poofy dress, wedding party, bouquet toss. You can most certainly still have a party with dancing and good food! 

Bonobo528

Thanks Jells2dot0. If were flying all that way, it should be a legit ceremony. plus, i don't think i would have the same emotions if it was a symbolic wedding.

nBb210

It saves a lot of money by getting a civil ceremony at home and then a symbolic ceremony at your DW. In Mexico, you have so pay more for a legal ceremony in addition to bringing important documents overseas AND having to shell out $200-300 for required blood tests and Xrays done at the hotel. I think it saves time, money, and stress to get a civil ceremony at home and a symbolic ceremony at the DW. It's not like you have the dress on and the decor and everything at the courthouse. Talk to your wedding coordinator/venue about the requirements.

Jells2dot0

nBb210 said:

It saves a lot of money by getting a civil ceremony at home and then a symbolic ceremony at your DW. In Mexico, you have so pay more for a legal ceremony in addition to bringing important documents overseas AND having to shell out $200-300 for required blood tests and Xrays done at the hotel. I think it saves time, money, and stress to get a civil ceremony at home and a symbolic ceremony at the DW. It's not like you have the dress on and the decor and everything at the courthouse. Talk to your wedding coordinator/venue about the requirements.

It may be more expensive for paperwork and tests, but your guests are paying a lot more money to travel to see a wedding- the actual exchange of vows and the actual real ceremony for the bride and groom. I would be quite livid if I traveled to Mexico to see someone get married and then found out it was actually a vow renewal. If the couple outright noted a vow renewal on the invitations, then at least i'd be properly informed on what to expect. Besides, when a couple decides to do a DW, they should know that it's most likely going to cost a bit more for paperwork. In my mind, though, in most cases, it's still less expensive than a traditional wedding. Don't forget that the civil ceremony is not free either! You're going to be paying for a marriage cert and maybe tests no matter what!

Bonobo528

Thank you for the input. I've researched the wedding package and requirements at the resort we've chosen, it doesn't say anything about x-rays but there is a $450 fee for legal filing and documentation, and $100 for a blood test ($50 each). I agree with you Jells when you say that guest may be upset if they knew it wasn't a "real" wedding. Either way, I still think we're saving tons by doing a DW. Plus, were staying enough nights to have the complimentary wedding free - its simple and that is ok!

divadancer11

For us, we are having a "blessing Ceremony" in Aruba and doing the courthouse thing once we get back. No one is invited to Aruba, it will just be us and in order to get legally married it is an additional 1,000 + we would have to Go to city hall and get married by the mayor first. For us, it makes sense. Since you have guests I would say you should do it legally in Mexico

nBb210

I guess in my case, since we are having only closest family and friends, is that everyone would know in advance and no one would really care one way or the other! I can understand if you're having more guests that you would want to do the real thing on site, but for us, the symbolism is more important. Good luck with your planning!

Ausome13

I don't think guest would feel cheated if you filled out the paperwork in advance. I don't think it's ideal of course but I know the people coming to my ceremony wouldn't care if we didn't fill out paperwork until we got back. I know some people just do the vow renewal for a DW because of some of the requirements. For instance some islands in the Virgin Islands like St. Vincent would require almost a whole day traveling to the Ministry of Legal affair or in St. Martin one person has to be in the country for 30 days prior. So I can understand why some people don't want to jump through all those hoops. I hope however you decide that it's perfect for you! 

saric83

We also got married at a Palace resort in Cancun, and the only other difference besides what PPs said is that you need to be at the resort a few more days in advance than with just the symbolic.  I think we had to be there five days before the civil ceremony, but if we were just doing symbolic, it was three days.  

kdimeglio6969

Sandals Montego Bay
Feb 7, 2014

We are doing a civil ceremony here a week before so 1) we don't have to take our birth certificates to Jamaica 2) our family that can not attend the Jamaica wedding can be present (groom father, few others

My guests will not know that it is a retie the knot. There will be no mention of it. We did our own vows.

[Deleted User]

I think this is a pretty personal decision. Everywhere on the knot you will see that technically this is against etiquette and the wrong thing to do. 

I think as a guest I'd be a little upset if I flew to a different country for the wedding and only found out later that it was a "retie the knot" -- especially if there had been a separate ceremony including other people before hand. Depending on my relationship with the couple it may or may not turn into a big deal. If I knew the situation beforehand I don't think that I'd have any problem with it - but that's just me.

For us, we did have to travel to the local courthouse to pick up the license and then had to trust our officiant to turn it back in once we were done. It took about half a day out of our schedule to get all that done but we planned for it so it wasn't a big deal. 

Bonobo528

Thank you everyone for your input. I can wholeheartedly agree that this a decision that is specific to each couple's needs/preference. I just wasn't sure if getting married beforehand saved a considerable amount of money or made a huge difference.

@saric83 - I made sure to check into the required days. To have the civil ceremony, we are required to be in Mexico 3 business days prior to the wedding. They will count your arrival day as one of the three as long as you are there before noon. Looks like me and the fiance' will be flying out early in the morning!

littlemisssunshinehk

My partner and I live in Hong Kong but are getting married in Thailand. We will get 'officially' married a day before we fly to Thailand (no ceremony, ring exchange or guests just official documents at registry office) as it is better for legal purposes. Very few of our guests will know about the official business in HK and even to us we will not consider ourselves 'married' until our big day in Thailand!

Crocam68

My FH and I are having a religious ceremony at home before we go to turks and Caicos. We're mainly doing it for the religious aspect but my grandmother won't be able to attend the destination wedding. In my research while deciding we saw that it can at 6-8 weeks to actually have your paperwork sent back to America and processed. We did not want to have to wait 6-8 weeks before being able to do legal paperwork for insurances and what not. Especially since it takes so long to have your named changed.

But like said before it is the couples decision and all guests should be accepting for what the couple has decided.

Jells2dot0

I'm sorry, but if you knowingly decide to have a DW, then you made the choice to abide by their laws and regulations. I had to do a ton of paperwork before my wedding and waited almost 4 months to get my marriage cert from Australia to change my name, but I knew that going into it and made the decision to abide by that when I chose to marry there. I realize that some people have DWs in locations where their family is located but the marriage is not legally recognized in the US, so you have to have a civil ceremony as well. However, it appears that some people just don't want to be bothered with the whole DW process and just want a PPD on the beach because it looks nice in the pictures. It's not fair to the guests that are NOT made aware of this setup ahead of time, as they most likely paid a lot of money to see the couple actually get married. If the guests knew ahead of time, and still went, then that was their decision and they made it knowing the full circumstances.

doeydo

Your won't be having a destination wedding if no one is getting "wed".  You would be having a PPD. 

TerriHugg

Ok here's my two cents:

1. Yes, getting married before the destination wedding is against etiquette. 

2. Though, it is against etiquette I am personally not offended by such things. I believe that every body has a reason for doing something and it's not always my business. So even if I found out after the fact that you were actually married before the "wedding", I wouldn't take offense to it. 

3. Depending on how it's done, it may not actually be against etiquette. Earlier this year, someone posted an article in the etiquette forum discussing this subject. The article stated that getting married before is against wedding etiquette, except if a religious ceremony is held before the "wedding" and not much time has passed in between the two. I wish I could find the article. It was posted in thread when someone was discussing getting married in Virginia first and then driving across state lines to have the wedding for some reason. 

ETA: I found the article: It's call you only wed once. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012800896_2.html

On the first page it states the following: But, dear people, a wedding ceremony is a legal and/or religious ceremony. (Yes, a couple is allowed one of each, but in that case, the two quickly follow each other, and only one has a party attached.)

Assuming this article by Miss Manner's is in fact accurate, you technically wouldn't be doing anything wrong if you had a legal ceremony first and than a religious ceremony a few days later in Mexico. 

shelikespink

Oh wow I didn't realize getting married before was against etiquette! Maybe it's just where I live or something but everyone does that.. and I was planning to do that too, just to avoid the headache! I wanted to have the religious ceremony at home and then do the traditional bride walks down the aisle wedding for the DW.

missmo14

I can count about 5 PPDs in my family alone. Mostly its been because they decided to have a civil ceremony here in Australia then a full on traditional African wedding in Africa. The traditional weddings arent 'legally binding' but are symbolic of our culture.

Im not having a PPD but when I eventually get back to Africa, my FI and I will get a traditional blessing of our marriage.

mrs4everhart

Y'all don't worry about the whole "PPD" thing - it's among the silliest made up crap ever spewed. If getting married in your local jurisdiction prior to leaving makes your life and your DW easier, go for it! Seriously! Mexico is a particular PITA. I wouldn't waste a second of my long awaited trip to Tulum running around, getting poked by needles and spending needless hundreds of dollars when I could be on the beach with a margarita in my hand with my family and friends! 

shelikespink

Interesting article I just read:

http://www.brevardminister.com/1/post/2013/07/legal-marriage-then-social-wedding-no-its-not-a-fake-wedding.html

I guess it's good to look at the definition of wedding!

pbi9994

Love this note at the end:

This particular column has generated a surprising amount of email and not all of it has been kind. I find the phrase "Pretty Princess Day" to be rude, spiteful, and ignorant and will be delighted if I never hear it or see it in print again.The only requirements for a legal marriage are a couple in possession of a valid marriage license, an officiant authorized to solemnize the marriage, and in some locations witnesses. Therefore, any woman planning more than that for her wedding day has no call to be accusing anyone else of unwarranted attention seeking. In other words, pot meet kettle.  

If you are opposed to the practice of separating the solemnization of the marriage from the wedding, than [sic] just don't  do it and don't attend the weddings of those who do. It really is that simple. There is no acceptable reason to exhibit a lack of compassion and shame others for decisions that differ from yours.

Jells2dot0

STBMrsEverhart said:

Y'all don't worry about the whole "PPD" thing - it's among the silliest made up crap ever spewed. If getting married in your local jurisdiction prior to leaving makes your life and your DW easier, go for it! Seriously! Mexico is a particular PITA. I wouldn't waste a second of my long awaited trip to Tulum running around, getting poked by needles and spending needless hundreds of dollars when I could be on the beach with a margarita in my hand with my family and friends! 

Then my question would be WHY bother planning a DW when you have to plan out  civil ceremony at home. Might as well just do the traditional thing at home an not worry about traveling. Not trying to argue, but to me, if someone decides to do a DW then it seems silly if they chose a destination where they didn't want to follow the legal requirements. 

Jells2dot0

shelikespink said:

Interesting article I just read:

http://www.brevardminister.com/1/post/2013/07/legal-marriage-then-social-wedding-no-its-not-a-fake-wedding.html

I guess it's good to look at the definition of wedding!

Interesting article. I think that there is a difference between doing it for cultural or religious reasons and then doing it because a JOP or simple civil ceremony was not good enough or fancy enough. Most of what I have seen on here is strictly entitlement or thinking one deserves something beyond their current means. 

pbi9994

Jells2dot0 said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

Y'all don't worry about the whole "PPD" thing - it's among the silliest made up crap ever spewed. If getting married in your local jurisdiction prior to leaving makes your life and your DW easier, go for it! Seriously! Mexico is a particular PITA. I wouldn't waste a second of my long awaited trip to Tulum running around, getting poked by needles and spending needless hundreds of dollars when I could be on the beach with a margarita in my hand with my family and friends! 

Then my question would be WHY bother planning a DW when you have to plan out  civil ceremony at home. Might as well just do the traditional thing at home an not worry about traveling. Not trying to argue, but to me, if someone decides to do a DW then it seems silly if they chose a destination where they didn't want to follow the legal requirements. 

Totally understand your questioning on this, so indulge me for a moment by going into my own particulars. I don't think I'm a special snowflake, but the fact is that there can be a lot of variables that influence the decision to get legally married first (or after the fact), not just that a JOP wedding wouldn't be fancy enough.

Originally we thought we would get married in Ireland, looked into the legal requirements, and after some confusion about residency requirements, opted for Italy instead. The legal requirements in Italy were that we get married at city hall. Beautiful building, totally fine with that. It only sat 35 people. I thought that was fine because: who's going to go to Italy for my wedding, right? Well, at that point, word had spread through both of our families (which aren't small to begin with) and we received a lot of excited feedback. Most of my family is Italian, and they have been looking for an excuse to make the trip anyway. The immediate invite list swelled from under 35 to over 60. We were then faced with the following options:

1. Switch the venue, make it a symbolic ceremony, invite everyone.

2. Nix the whole idea, get married in LA, invite three times that list, throw a less luxurious party for my guests because everything here is so expensive. 

3. Let my family down by saying we can't invite everyone because the venue is too small. Only invite 35 people.

Well, we tried #3. It didn't take. A lot of family, friends of family, etc. said they would go anyway and stand in the back of the room. Some went as far as booking apartments. There was also the problem that they don't do weddings in the afternoons, and we would have ti have a gap between the ceremony and reception because the venues that offer lunch receptions were already really picked over. So we switched venues. We are having a symbolic ceremony because that was the choice that made the most sense for our guests. 

No, we didn't have to invite them, but when all is said and done we wanted to throw a party that was more about them than us. So we compromised on the logistics. 

mrs4everhart

Jells2dot0 said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

Y'all don't worry about the whole "PPD" thing - it's among the silliest made up crap ever spewed. If getting married in your local jurisdiction prior to leaving makes your life and your DW easier, go for it! Seriously! Mexico is a particular PITA. I wouldn't waste a second of my long awaited trip to Tulum running around, getting poked by needles and spending needless hundreds of dollars when I could be on the beach with a margarita in my hand with my family and friends! 

Then my question would be WHY bother planning a DW when you have to plan out  civil ceremony at home. Might as well just do the traditional thing at home an not worry about traveling. Not trying to argue, but to me, if someone decides to do a DW then it seems silly if they chose a destination where they didn't want to follow the legal requirements. 

There isn't much planning involved with driving to the courthouse, paying $30, signing a piece of paper, and heading home. That's not really a ceremony. Registering my car every year is often more complicated and certainly more time consuming. 

Jells2dot0

icecreamcono said:

Jells2dot0 said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

Y'all don't worry about the whole "PPD" thing - it's among the silliest made up crap ever spewed. If getting married in your local jurisdiction prior to leaving makes your life and your DW easier, go for it! Seriously! Mexico is a particular PITA. I wouldn't waste a second of my long awaited trip to Tulum running around, getting poked by needles and spending needless hundreds of dollars when I could be on the beach with a margarita in my hand with my family and friends! 

Then my question would be WHY bother planning a DW when you have to plan out  civil ceremony at home. Might as well just do the traditional thing at home an not worry about traveling. Not trying to argue, but to me, if someone decides to do a DW then it seems silly if they chose a destination where they didn't want to follow the legal requirements. 

Totally understand your questioning on this, so indulge me for a moment by going into my own particulars. I don't think I'm a special snowflake, but the fact is that there can be a lot of variables that influence the decision to get legally married first (or after the fact), not just that a JOP wedding wouldn't be fancy enough.

Originally we thought we would get married in Ireland, looked into the legal requirements, and after some confusion about residency requirements, opted for Italy instead. The legal requirements in Italy were that we get married at city hall. Beautiful building, totally fine with that. It only sat 35 people. I thought that was fine because: who's going to go to Italy for my wedding, right? Well, at that point, word had spread through both of our families (which aren't small to begin with) and we received a lot of excited feedback. Most of my family is Italian, and they have been looking for an excuse to make the trip anyway. The immediate invite list swelled from under 35 to over 60. We were then faced with the following options:

1. Switch the venue, make it a symbolic ceremony, invite everyone.

2. Nix the whole idea, get married in LA, invite three times that list, throw a less luxurious party for my guests because everything here is so expensive. 

3. Let my family down by saying we can't invite everyone because the venue is too small. Only invite 35 people.

Well, we tried #3. It didn't take. A lot of family, friends of family, etc. said they would go anyway and stand in the back of the room. Some went as far as booking apartments. There was also the problem that they don't do weddings in the afternoons, and we would have ti have a gap between the ceremony and reception because the venues that offer lunch receptions were already really picked over. So we switched venues. We are having a symbolic ceremony because that was the choice that made the most sense for our guests. 

No, we didn't have to invite them, but when all is said and done we wanted to throw a party that was more about them than us. So we compromised on the logistics. 

You at least tried to actually follow the legal requirements. I'm questioning those who know the legal requirements going into it but can't be bothered to actually follow through with them because it's too much work. IMHO, it seems selfish to be married somewhere but not want to do what the country requires you to do just because the person doesn't like the requirements or doesn't think its worth their time to go through the process. It just screams that the only reason someone chose the destination is because it looks pretty and it would be fun to sip cocktails on a beach with their friends. You can do that at home, but maybe your cocktails aren't with your toes in the sand. It just looks like the destination's laws don't matter that person, and I just want my pretty pictures and want my guests to be impressed!!! I know not every DW falls into this category, but at the higher level, it just sounds selfish. Again all my personal opinion and everyone is entitled to one. Of course, if there is family in that destination or cultural significance, the destination obviously is important and the couple obviously won't come off as being so selfish.However, it all boils down the original point- not telling your guests it's not the actual wedding!!! Fine, you don't want to head to Mexico two days earlier to get blood taken, so you have a civil ceremony before you leave. I don't agree with it. But, to do that and then not have your guests in the loop with your plans? That is REALLY rude IMHO.

Plus, it's going to take half a day to head down to the court house, fill out some paperwork, and have the civil union. So, it's saving maybe a day and a half? I think it's good to arrive early into a destination prior to a wedding just because of all of the things that can happen (flights, wedding coordination) and to also be rested before the actual event.

edit- spelling

 

 

Mystikjaed

Jells2dot0 said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

Y'all don't worry about the whole "PPD" thing - it's among the silliest made up crap ever spewed. If getting married in your local jurisdiction prior to leaving makes your life and your DW easier, go for it! Seriously! Mexico is a particular PITA. I wouldn't waste a second of my long awaited trip to Tulum running around, getting poked by needles and spending needless hundreds of dollars when I could be on the beach with a margarita in my hand with my family and friends! 

Then my question would be WHY bother planning a DW when you have to plan out  civil ceremony at home. Might as well just do the traditional thing at home an not worry about traveling. Not trying to argue, but to me, if someone decides to do a DW then it seems silly if they chose a destination where they didn't want to follow the legal requirements. 

Hmm, I've gone to 3 DWs and all of them went the "legal/church wedding at home, fun wedding in the tropics" route. No one thought it was in bad taste, no one complained about etiquette, we were all there to celebrate and have a good time with the couple. Maybe it's because they were all DWs that were 7 days long with sight-seeing and group excursions and dinners and parties? In any case, that's what we plan on doing as well and everyone we've talked to is excited to come.

mrs4everhart

Jells2dot0 said:

icecreamcono said:

Jells2dot0 said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

Y'all don't worry about the whole "PPD" thing - it's among the silliest made up crap ever spewed. If getting married in your local jurisdiction prior to leaving makes your life and your DW easier, go for it! Seriously! Mexico is a particular PITA. I wouldn't waste a second of my long awaited trip to Tulum running around, getting poked by needles and spending needless hundreds of dollars when I could be on the beach with a margarita in my hand with my family and friends! 

Then my question would be WHY bother planning a DW when you have to plan out  civil ceremony at home. Might as well just do the traditional thing at home an not worry about traveling. Not trying to argue, but to me, if someone decides to do a DW then it seems silly if they chose a destination where they didn't want to follow the legal requirements. 

Totally understand your questioning on this, so indulge me for a moment by going into my own particulars. I don't think I'm a special snowflake, but the fact is that there can be a lot of variables that influence the decision to get legally married first (or after the fact), not just that a JOP wedding wouldn't be fancy enough.

Originally we thought we would get married in Ireland, looked into the legal requirements, and after some confusion about residency requirements, opted for Italy instead. The legal requirements in Italy were that we get married at city hall. Beautiful building, totally fine with that. It only sat 35 people. I thought that was fine because: who's going to go to Italy for my wedding, right? Well, at that point, word had spread through both of our families (which aren't small to begin with) and we received a lot of excited feedback. Most of my family is Italian, and they have been looking for an excuse to make the trip anyway. The immediate invite list swelled from under 35 to over 60. We were then faced with the following options:

1. Switch the venue, make it a symbolic ceremony, invite everyone.

2. Nix the whole idea, get married in LA, invite three times that list, throw a less luxurious party for my guests because everything here is so expensive. 

3. Let my family down by saying we can't invite everyone because the venue is too small. Only invite 35 people.

Well, we tried #3. It didn't take. A lot of family, friends of family, etc. said they would go anyway and stand in the back of the room. Some went as far as booking apartments. There was also the problem that they don't do weddings in the afternoons, and we would have ti have a gap between the ceremony and reception because the venues that offer lunch receptions were already really picked over. So we switched venues. We are having a symbolic ceremony because that was the choice that made the most sense for our guests. 

No, we didn't have to invite them, but when all is said and done we wanted to throw a party that was more about them than us. So we compromised on the logistics. 

You at least tried to actually follow the legal requirements. I'm questioning those who know the legal requirements going into it but can't be bothered to actually follow through with them because it's too much work. IMHO, it seems selfish to be married somewhere but not want to do what the country requires you to do just because the person doesn't like the requirements or doesn't think its worth their time to go through the process. It just screams that the only reason someone chose the destination is because it looks pretty and it would be fun to sip cocktails on a beach with their friends. You can do that at home, but maybe your cocktails aren't with your toes in the sand. It just looks like the destination's laws don't matter that person, and I just want my pretty pictures and want my guests to be impressed!!! I know not every DW falls into this category, but at the higher level, it just sounds selfish. Again all my personal opinion and everyone is entitled to one. Of course, if there is family in that destination or cultural significance, the destination obviously is important and the couple obviously won't come off as being so selfish.However, it all boils down the original point- not telling your guests it's not the actual wedding!!! Fine, you don't want to head to Mexico two days earlier to get blood taken, so you have a civil ceremony before you leave. I don't agree with it. But, to do that and then not have your guests in the loop with your plans? That is REALLY rude IMHO.

Plus, it's going to take half a day to head down to the court house, fill out some paperwork, and have the civil union. So, it's saving maybe a day and a half? I think it's good to arrive early into a destination prior to a wedding just because of all of the things that can happen (flights, wedding coordination) and to also be rested before the actual event.

edit- spelling

 

 

@Jells2dot0 - To the bolded, certainly I can't say how long it takes everyone in every jurisdiction but we were in and out of the courthouse in under an hour, no half day wasted at all. And Mexico's legalities are more complicated for foreigners than you have intimated. In addition to blood tests and HUNDREDS of dollars in fees, the couple and 4 witnesses must be IN COUNTRY a minimum of 72 hours, weekends excluded. Thanks, but no thanks. 

Jells2dot0

STBMrsEverhart said:

Jells2dot0 said:

icecreamcono said:

Jells2dot0 said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

Y'all don't worry about the whole "PPD" thing - it's among the silliest made up crap ever spewed. If getting married in your local jurisdiction prior to leaving makes your life and your DW easier, go for it! Seriously! Mexico is a particular PITA. I wouldn't waste a second of my long awaited trip to Tulum running around, getting poked by needles and spending needless hundreds of dollars when I could be on the beach with a margarita in my hand with my family and friends! 

Then my question would be WHY bother planning a DW when you have to plan out  civil ceremony at home. Might as well just do the traditional thing at home an not worry about traveling. Not trying to argue, but to me, if someone decides to do a DW then it seems silly if they chose a destination where they didn't want to follow the legal requirements. 

Totally understand your questioning on this, so indulge me for a moment by going into my own particulars. I don't think I'm a special snowflake, but the fact is that there can be a lot of variables that influence the decision to get legally married first (or after the fact), not just that a JOP wedding wouldn't be fancy enough.

Originally we thought we would get married in Ireland, looked into the legal requirements, and after some confusion about residency requirements, opted for Italy instead. The legal requirements in Italy were that we get married at city hall. Beautiful building, totally fine with that. It only sat 35 people. I thought that was fine because: who's going to go to Italy for my wedding, right? Well, at that point, word had spread through both of our families (which aren't small to begin with) and we received a lot of excited feedback. Most of my family is Italian, and they have been looking for an excuse to make the trip anyway. The immediate invite list swelled from under 35 to over 60. We were then faced with the following options:

1. Switch the venue, make it a symbolic ceremony, invite everyone.

2. Nix the whole idea, get married in LA, invite three times that list, throw a less luxurious party for my guests because everything here is so expensive. 

3. Let my family down by saying we can't invite everyone because the venue is too small. Only invite 35 people.

Well, we tried #3. It didn't take. A lot of family, friends of family, etc. said they would go anyway and stand in the back of the room. Some went as far as booking apartments. There was also the problem that they don't do weddings in the afternoons, and we would have ti have a gap between the ceremony and reception because the venues that offer lunch receptions were already really picked over. So we switched venues. We are having a symbolic ceremony because that was the choice that made the most sense for our guests. 

No, we didn't have to invite them, but when all is said and done we wanted to throw a party that was more about them than us. So we compromised on the logistics. 

You at least tried to actually follow the legal requirements. I'm questioning those who know the legal requirements going into it but can't be bothered to actually follow through with them because it's too much work. IMHO, it seems selfish to be married somewhere but not want to do what the country requires you to do just because the person doesn't like the requirements or doesn't think its worth their time to go through the process. It just screams that the only reason someone chose the destination is because it looks pretty and it would be fun to sip cocktails on a beach with their friends. You can do that at home, but maybe your cocktails aren't with your toes in the sand. It just looks like the destination's laws don't matter that person, and I just want my pretty pictures and want my guests to be impressed!!! I know not every DW falls into this category, but at the higher level, it just sounds selfish. Again all my personal opinion and everyone is entitled to one. Of course, if there is family in that destination or cultural significance, the destination obviously is important and the couple obviously won't come off as being so selfish.However, it all boils down the original point- not telling your guests it's not the actual wedding!!! Fine, you don't want to head to Mexico two days earlier to get blood taken, so you have a civil ceremony before you leave. I don't agree with it. But, to do that and then not have your guests in the loop with your plans? That is REALLY rude IMHO.

Plus, it's going to take half a day to head down to the court house, fill out some paperwork, and have the civil union. So, it's saving maybe a day and a half? I think it's good to arrive early into a destination prior to a wedding just because of all of the things that can happen (flights, wedding coordination) and to also be rested before the actual event.

edit- spelling

 

 

@Jells2dot0 - To the bolded, certainly I can't say how long it takes everyone in every jurisdiction but we were in and out of the courthouse in under an hour, no half day wasted at all. And Mexico's legalities are more complicated for foreigners than you have intimated. In addition to blood tests and HUNDREDS of dollars in fees, the couple and 4 witnesses must be IN COUNTRY a minimum of 72 hours, weekends excluded. Thanks, but no thanks. 

I am aware of the requirements. I considered destinations all over the world when planning my wedding. I actually eliminated some from my list because of the requirements. I was looking at one place that required me to be in country for 3 weeks- it didn't fit my circumstances so I didn't get married there! That's all I'm asking- WHY choose to have a wedding some place where you don't want to follow the laws in order to have your marriage legal? One pp said she was having a ceremony in Africa because of cultural significance. She answered the question and her reasoning made sense. Again, I get it if it's a cultural thing or if all of your family lives there and it's important to be married where your family lives, but otherwise, it just seems selfish by making guests take vacation time and spend a thousand dollars plus because the bride and groom wanted nice beach pictures for a ceremony that is not even the actual marriage.