Is it a PPD if...?

themosthappy91

Did a search on this and didn't find anything so I thought I'd just ask- is it still considered a PPD, with all its negative connotations, if a gay couple chooses to get legally married in another state and then have a big "wedding" type event in their home state?  Just curious what the thoughts on this are!

steph861

Personally, I think this would be the exception to the rule. Obviously everybody attending the celebration would know what's up and (hopefully) support it.

If the couple had held a wedding-like commitment ceremony previously, then I would say that the post-legal wedding celebration probably shouldn't have all the trappings of a typical wedding. I don't see a problem with having a big celebration, though.

larrygaga

I think this is the exception. When the state stops being rude and votes to allow gay marriage is when gay couples have to stop having a rude ppd. Until then it's not rude at all.

levieenrose

Congratulations on your engagement!

I really, really hate to say this, but I feel the answer is yes to the negative connotations (although I dislike the term "PPD" and what it means...). If you can be legally married and you are going to be, while it is incredibly unfair that this country will force you to have an OOT wedding, it would still be breaking etiquette to re-enact the event for your guests later.

The safest route is to go all out for an OOT wedding at a nice location, or choose instead to have a legal ceremony OOT followed by a celebration sans ceremony in your home state with people you love. 

IMO, general etiquette is moot solely for a specific crowd only if that crowd collectively finds proper etiquette to be personally insulting. While that rarely applies to weddings, I would say your only etiquette-out would be if you explained the above to your family and friends and there was a huge uproar and everyone begged you to re-enact the ceremony.  But you better be sure it's what all your guests want. Only invite people you know to feel those sentiments using research from a good friend doing behind-your-back reconnaissance. And as you already know, you should be upfront about everything.

It's pretty ridiculous that you have to deal with this at all, but that's another tirade I'm sure you're sick of discussing. I hope that your home state will recognize your marriage once you are back with the paperwork. What an infuriating situation. Wishing you the best and hope it goes smoothly. 

ETA: Really, even if there was an uproar, I would say it would be best to have a celebration sans ceremony. You can still take a moment to share what your vows were to each other, and I'm sure everyone will want to hear about this fantastic moment in your lives. It can be a heartfelt celebration without the ceremony, which is really the point this etiquette board tries to make. The really important thing is that you can be married!! 

levieenrose

Sorry to post again about this, but I keep thinking about it...

If it turns out that your state WON'T recognize your legality when you return with the paperwork--if you receive no benefits while you are living there--I say do whatever the heck you want and feels right to you. To take away that validity is inhuman and despicable. There's no reason why you can't or shouldn't have a ceremony including your vows in an attempt to actively solidify them in a state which unjustly forbids you to do so and denies you the legally approved benefits of such a commitment. Having a ceremony in such an instance would in no way detract from the truthfulness of what your guests are witnessing. 

ETA: To sum up, I think the previous post applies if your state has laws in place which require it to recognize your out-of-state marriage. This post applies if your antidiluvian state refuses to recognize the legality of your out-of-state marriage. 

mrscaty

When I saw the title of the post, my initial reaction was "if you have to ask, the answer is yes" BUT this case the exception to the rule. Get on with your bad self.

ohannabelle

There are a couple of threads on this, and the general consensus seems to be that no, this isn't a PPD, as long as there are not two big fat weddings with bells and whistles in both locations.

(Longer discussion here: http://forums.theknot.com/discussion/1034408/etiquette-for-tying-the-knot-legally-6-years-after-commitment-ceremony/p1)

This is more like the weddings in different countries (some European, several Central and South American) where residents are legally required to be married in a courthouse/civil setting and paperwork filed before a church ceremony. Not a PPD, just satisfying legal requirements.

So no, with all respect to @levieenrose, this doesn't qualify as a Pretty Princess Day, which is a reenactment solely for the ego gratification of someone who had the choice to have the bells and whistles, but chose a "convenient" ceremony for insurance benefits, or whatever, but later decided she wanted a do-over for presents and cakes and poofy princess dress.  

In your case, you don't have the same legal rights as any other couple. You can't have a nice local wedding in your own state. Your only choices are A: be rude and inconsiderate, and plan a destination wedding, putting unreasonable financial demands and the inconvenience of travel on your guests, or b: satisfy legal requirements by traveling yourself, sign your papers quietly, and have your wedding ceremony at home. 

You get a pass, because of the civil rights violation. 

levieenrose

You know what, agreed with @ohannabelle. Regardless, you should have the option in your state to celebrate like any other person. Don't worry about it, and have the best time of your life.  

themosthappy91

I am so sorry I should have clarified that I wasn't asking for myself- just having a normal boring straight wedding over here. My best friend is the one who wanted to know so I suggested I ask on here to get the general consensus! Nonetheless, the advice is much appreciated , I REALLY wanted to tell her that it's our stupid state's fault and she should get to have a "marriage" (where it's legally allowed) and a "wedding" to celebrate with friends and family as she would have done if it were allowed, but I didn't know if that was best friend goggles making me think that.

levieenrose

You're a good friend. Hope you both have a blast with your weddings!

Bubblegum5586

ladygoldfish said:

When I saw the title of the post, my initial reaction was "if you have to ask, the answer is yes" BUT this case the exception to the rule. Get on with your bad self.

This was my thought

[Deleted User]

Normally I would agree with the one PP that why not just do an OOT wedding and just do it once. But that is not always realistic for guests & costs. But in these types of cases, your guests are going to know that a marriage performed in your state isn't legal so that you would have to go elsewhere to be legally married so is it really a PPD then? I don't think so, because the couple didn't have the option to get married in their homestate like straight couples do.

photokitty

ElizabethAdeline91 said:

Did a search on this and didn't find anything so I thought I'd just ask- is it still considered a PPD, with all its negative connotations, if a gay couple chooses to get legally married in another state and then have a big "wedding" type event in their home state?  Just curious what the thoughts on this are!

I say NO, it is not a PPD. But that could be bc my sister and her wife had to go to DC to be legally married as they could not in our state. I was happy to be a bridesmaid and celebrate her in a "fake ceremony" in our home state that is currently on the wrong side of history...here's hoping with "we" get with the program with this Nov's vote!!

VulgarGirl

When a state has it's collective head up it's ass, a couple does what they have to do. My FI and I will be having our wedding in our fucked up state where we are considered little more then roommates who share a bed for some reason, then we'll head over to CA and get the legal rights for the federal government.

I asked about this when I first got here (and if I weren't feeling so lazy I'd go look it up for you) and then general consensus was no, not a PPD because my state has it's head up it's ass. And everyone at my wedding knows about the whole head up the ass issue. It's not a secret. 

wrigleyville

I think it's @QueerFemme who refers to their wedding ceremony date as their Anniversary and their "paperwork" date as their Taxiversary. :-D

QueerFemme

wrigleyville said:

I think it's @QueerFemme who refers to their wedding ceremony date as their Anniversary and their "paperwork" date as their Taxiversary. :-D

Yep. that's me.   I think, a couple should be able to have their wedding in their home state, and be able to celebrate with their friends and family locally, even if they are forced to get legally married in another jurisdiction.

HOWEVER, the legal marriage shouldn't be a big shindig.    It should be the couple and a witness, if required, getting JOP married.  it IS a big deal, but if you make it a big deal, only to have the big wedding ceremony and reception later, it treads into PPD territory.  

I also think it's important to have them about the same time.    If you got legally married today for the insurance or tax benefits, and waited a year to have the big wedding, then you are in PPD territory.    My preference for folks would be to have the wedding, and then get legally married on the honeymoon or trot off to a neighboring state in the following days after the ceremony.

For me, having our wedding ceremony, in front of our family and friends, was really important and was our REAL wedding.  If I was already legally married prior to that day, it would have felt a little disingenous.