“We’re still having a wedding though!”

[Deleted User]

This is my first time posting on this particular board, but I just saw something that made me gag on Facebook and I just had to share it. Girl gets engaged around Valentines Day, posts multiple times about planning her summer wedding, then changes her relationship status to “married” today and changes her last name. She then posts to *clarify* that they got married a week ago “but don't worry! There will still be a wedding!” ... ... ... What do you mean? You're already married... You had a wedding... A week ago! You are MARRIED!

Rolling my eyes all over the place.

hellohkb

Ugh. So tacky! And "don't worry!"as if everyone is sitting around worrying about the party of the century.

bethsmiles

Well thank god. I'm sure people just devastated when they thought there wouldn't be a wedding! Surely at least a few people needed to be talked off the ledge of buildings. *eye roll*

I'd be tempted to reply with this:

KatieinBkln

DON'T WORRY. PUT THE NOOSE AWAY.

[Deleted User]

I'm just really confused about why anyone would think this is totally normal and fine. “We're already married, but we want you to come watch us get married again in August and pretend we're not already married so everyone can see me in a dress and eat cake and give us presents and tell us how great we are.”

NotTheOnlyOne

I have a legit question about this PPD thing.

I totally understand calling it that if you plan and have this wedding months after you are married.

It is my experience with people close to me that have married that if the ceremony is religious, they have to do the "legal" part at the courthouse a few days prior. Is it still then considered a PPD?

I feel like this might be a dumb question but this PPD thing is new to me.

My ceremony is non-religious and will all happen that day, but I'm curious as to how far this goes.

RebeccaFlower

NotTheOnlyOne said:

I have a legit question about this PPD thing.

I totally understand calling it that if you plan and have this wedding months after you are married.

It is my experience with people close to me that have married that if the ceremony is religious, they have to do the "legal" part at the courthouse a few days prior. Is it still then considered a PPD? 

I feel like this might be a dumb question but this PPD thing is new to me.

My ceremony is non-religious and will all happen that day, but I'm curious as to how far this goes.

Yes, it is because religious ceremonies aren't legally binding. 

NotTheOnlyOne

Right, so if you are religious and your family is religious and would like to witness and share in your religious wedding then you are considered someone having a fake wedding because you signed a paper 2 days prior?

I'm an atheist and this is not at all an issue for me, but I'm finding this a bit unfair. If religion is important to you than that is the ceremony that you want your family there for. 

I'm referring to people who sign their license the week of, not people who get married in February and plan a "real wedding" in November. 

damnthetorpedoes

Right, so if you are religious and your family is religious and would like to witness and share in your religious wedding then you are considered someone having a fake wedding because you signed a paper 2 days prior?

Apparently, yes? The folks over at Etiquette have provided the following guide, as well as a very large number of enraged threads.

http://forums.theknot.com/discussion/1036614/legally-married-now-having-a-real-wedding-stop-here-first-aka-the-ppd-faq-thread

tl;dr: The only wedding day that is allowed to matter is the exact day you tell the government you're married. If you do anything else wedding-like on any other day, for ANY reason, you're a liar, a fraud, an AW, entitled, full of yourself, hypnotized by the wedding-industrial complex, greedy, selfish, self-obsessed, disrespectful to gay people, and disrespectful to people who only had JOPs. This still applies even if you refuse gifts or any other material or financial contribution, or if you've never lied about or hidden your legal status. And all your friends are going to hate you and resent you for years, even if they say they aren't. 

Seems like it's the new "it's not a real wedding unless you you're a never-married virgin wearing a white dress in a church." Now (because apparently legal bureaucracy and social ritual became the same thing at some point?) "it's not a real wedding unless it happens the exact same day you sign the legal papers."

(Here come the gifs, I imagine. Heh.)

thespeshulestsnowflake

Actually, some places in Europe, the civil and religious ceremonies have to be done on different days, and this is okay, since it is law. But in the US, civil and religious ceremonies can be done on the same day, so why would you need two days?

NotTheOnlyOne

I love you?

I just informed my sister and 3 of my bridesmaids that their wedding days were not real and that they are pretty princesses. They are excited about this. Also, asked me to get the fuck out of this place.

So, you are to come to this site to plan your wedding, as long as you never appear to be enjoying anything about planning your wedding or being a bride. Makes sense.

Sorry for getting off topic, OP. The case you described seems worthy of side eyeing.

damnthetorpedoes

@thespeshulestsnowflake -- Why does it matter if you do need (or even just want) two days? Not sarcasm or smartassery, legit question. I'm not seeing the big deal. 

Up to this point I had (mis)understood "PPD" to mean a wedding that's super self-centered or over-the-top, not one where the papers had been signed at some point prior to the ceremony/party/etc. 

ETA: NotTheOnlyOne reminded me of my manners, I too apologize to @rusticbride27 for yanking things off topic. Can make a new thread or take it to PMs if folks would prefer. 

Certainly the chick in the OP sounds like a AW -- funny how AWs demand that everyone look at them, then seem to forget that everyone's watching!

thespeshulestsnowflake

damnthetorpedoes said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake -- Why does it matter if you do need (or even just want) two days? Not sarcasm or smartassery, legit question. I'm not seeing the big deal. 

Up to this point I had (mis)understood "PPD" to mean a wedding that's super self-centered or over-the-top, not one where the papers had been signed at some point prior to the ceremony/party/etc. 

ETA: NotTheOnlyOne reminded me of my manners, I too apologize to @rusticbride27 for yanking things off topic. Can make a new thread or take it to PMs if folks would prefer. 

Certainly the chick in the OP sounds like a AW -- funny how AWs demand that everyone look at them, then seem to forget that everyone's watching!

Because the reception is a thank you from the two getting married to the guests for coming to the ceremony. They need to be on the same day.

KatieinBkln

NotTheOnlyOne said:

Right, so if you are religious and your family is religious and would like to witness and share in your religious wedding then you are considered someone having a fake wedding because you signed a paper 2 days prior?

I'm an atheist and this is not at all an issue for me, but I'm finding this a bit unfair. If religion is important to you than that is the ceremony that you want your family there for. 

I'm referring to people who sign their license the week of, not people who get married in February and plan a "real wedding" in November. 

Um. Because there is no actual NEED to sign the document prior? This is a glaring non-issue brought about by brides who are too lazy to manage the logistics of their legal and religious ceremonies. 

I assume they also make dinner by serving hot spaghetti an hour before the sauce gets done. Timing things properly is harrrrrrdddddd!

NotTheOnlyOne

thespeshulestsnowflake Yes, but they were at the ceremony. The religious one that is the one that matters to the family and the couple.

I asked my sister and friend last night and they said they both picked up their certificates at the court house 2 or 3 days before and were asked to take an oath, even though the signed forms did not have to be mailed in for 2 weeks. So, their wedding DID count?

This is very petty and ridiculous.

KatieinBkln

NotTheOnlyOne said:

thespeshulestsnowflake Yes, but they were at the ceremony. The religious one that is the one that matters to the family and the couple.

I asked my sister and friend last night and they said they both picked up their certificates at the court house 2 or 3 days before and were asked to take an oath, even though the signed forms did not have to be mailed in for 2 weeks. So, their wedding DID count?

This is very petty and ridiculous.

So they picked up their forms and were instructed to sign them and send them back in 2 weeks? That sounds like...how marriage licenses work. You pick it up, you take it to your wedding where you and the officiant sign it, and then you are married.

Frankly, if I find out someone did a JOP 2 days before the ceremony I saw, I would roll my eyes. I wouldn't clutch pearls or freak out, but I would find it ridiculous that a person couldn't figure out how to do what human adults have been doing for generations. 

mikenberger

NotTheOnlyOne said:

thespeshulestsnowflake Yes, but they were at the ceremony. The religious one that is the one that matters to the family and the couple.

I asked my sister and friend last night and they said they both picked up their certificates at the court house 2 or 3 days before and were asked to take an oath, even though the signed forms did not have to be mailed in for 2 weeks. So, their wedding DID count?

This is very petty and ridiculous.

Yup. I'll be doing this today when I drop off my marriage license application. You're basically oathing that you are who you say you are, you're able to get married and then the notary signs the application and it's processed and we can pick it up next week. It's good for 60 days.

It's not official until the officiant, myself, my FI and our two witnesses sign it and it's filed with the county. Then we are legally bound and married. Not three weeks prior when we filed for a license.

You're making this far too complicated. 

NotTheOnlyOne

mikenberger If this is the case then I don't think I've known anyone that has been official before the wedding.  This is why I asked.  I have never been married and have not gone through these steps.

I've always heard ladies say "Oh, we're already married" the day they picked up their certificates so I assumed they were signing.  They were not official yet.

Still, I cannot imagine why I would care if some one had.  This is so not important.

PamBeesly524

NotTheOnlyOne said:

mikenberger If this is the case then I don't think I've known anyone that has been official before the wedding.  This is why I asked.  I have never been married and have not gone through these steps.

I've always heard ladies say "Oh, we're already married" the day they picked up their certificates so I assumed they were signing.  They were not official yet.

Still, I cannot imagine why I would care if some one had.  This is so not important.

You wouldn't care if you had to sit through a fake marriage ceremony for a couple that's ALREADY MARRIED?

This thread is so confusing. 

thisismynickname2

NotTheOnlyOnemikenberger If this is the case then I don't think I've known anyone that has been official before the wedding.  This is why I asked.  I have never been married and have not gone through these steps.
I've always heard ladies say "Oh, we're already married" the day they picked up their certificates so I assumed they were signing.  They were not official yet.
Still, I cannot imagine why I would care if some one had.  This is so not important.------------ BOXES -------------------

In most states, you get the license first. Usually within 30 days of your planned wedding date. Then, an officiant marries you. I'm in IL and the officiant signed our license and mailed it off for us; part of what he's paid to do.  About a month or so later I went back to the records office to collect my certificate. Now that I have the certificate, I use it as evidence to get my name legally changed and changed on all my accounts, etc. 

What people snark on is when people get the license and have an officiant marry them legally before-- days, weeks, months-- the day they dress up in poofy ballgowns and tuxes and say vows in front of 100-200 people. In the United States you can wear a poofy ballgown and have an officiant legally marry you at the exact same time, but for a variety of reasons, people don't coordinate the two. That's why it's a "pretty princess day"--- not a wedding day. The wedding day is the day an officiant legally married you, so dressing up in a ballgown is just a day to prance around like a princess and nothing's actually happening. 

NotTheOnlyOne

thisismynickname - Thank you, that is very helpful.  Since my ceremony is the first in my circle that is not in a church I thought there was a difference. My officiant is also signing and sending the papers in.  It was always my (mis)understanding that those going to the courthouse the day or 2 before to pick up licenses were official at that point. People I asked yesterday seemed confused even now so I can wee where maybe they thought they were.

kikilamp I would feel maybe it's a little unnecessary if you've been living as husband and wife and then have a wedding, but if it had only been a few days (which now I know there would be little reason for) why does it matter.  This is personal, I guess. I'm just not anti people celebrating anything in any way they choose to, as long as everyone is hosted properly. Just really not up high on my list of things to look down on.

anjemon

damnthetorpedoes said:

Right, so if you are religious and your family is religious and would like to witness and share in your religious wedding then you are considered someone having a fake wedding because you signed a paper 2 days prior?

Apparently, yes? The folks over at Etiquette have provided the following guide, as well as a very large number of enraged threads.

http://forums.theknot.com/discussion/1036614/legally-married-now-having-a-real-wedding-stop-here-first-aka-the-ppd-faq-thread

tl;dr: The only wedding day that is allowed to matter is the exact day you tell the government you're married. If you do anything else wedding-like on any other day, for ANY reason, you're a liar, a fraud, an AW, entitled, full of yourself, hypnotized by the wedding-industrial complex, greedy, selfish, self-obsessed, disrespectful to gay people, and disrespectful to people who only had JOPs. This still applies even if you refuse gifts or any other material or financial contribution, or if you've never lied about or hidden your legal status. And all your friends are going to hate you and resent you for years, even if they say they aren't. 

Seems like it's the new "it's not a real wedding unless you you're a never-married virgin wearing a white dress in a church." Now (because apparently legal bureaucracy and social ritual became the same thing at some point?) "it's not a real wedding unless it happens the exact same day you sign the legal papers."

(Here come the gifs, I imagine. Heh.)

I guess this comment confuses me and the made me need to talk a lot about it. And I wrote a book. Feel free not to read.

Part of the reason there's a focus on when people are legally married is because that's the part that everyone has in common. There are different religions and different levels of religious weddings. People who aren't religious are invited to friend's weddings that are. And vice versa. There are people who aren't allowed to get legally married because our government can control that. So saying the legal part isn't important is frowned upon because that's all some people care about. Honestly, I could swear before God with my FI in our apartment tonight and I'm pretty sure God would consider us married. He doesn't care if I'm ordained or not, just what's in my heart. The legal part is what changes people's lives.

Partly it's because there's no reason you can't get legally married at the same time as religiously married. What are your reasons for getting married six months before the "real wedding"? Insurance? You're just doing it so you can save money. Deployment? Again, usually money. Sure it's harder to wait in both instances, but you can. You will be able to get married in six months. It's not a window that closes. So if you do decide to do a JOP ceremony so you can have insurance benefits, why are you having the wedding in six months? If it's religion you should have a priest marry you ASAP so you aren't living in sin for those months. So it's probably not religion. It's because you want to have the big day. You want to spend a lot of money and have people bring you presents. But you were too selfish to wait for them to be there. So it's just compounding on a "me, me, me" attitude.

I actually know some people who are married in their religion (Hmong) but not legally. They consider themselves married, but the government doesn't recognize that. I don't think anybody would say they didn't go to their "real" wedding, because the religious aspect was all that's important. And they aren't going to sign a certificate later. 

What people here really have a problem with is people who have a "hard time" doing all the things the rest of us do like timing and ceremony or getting a legal officiant. Or can't be bothered to wait however long they need. It's that you are saying you care more about yourself than me, the person who you supposedly care enough about to invite to your special day. And I in return, are supposed to care enough to spend money on you. But if you can't be bothered to care enough to wait, why should I be bothered to care enough to attend?

damnthetorpedoes

@anjemon I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to write your book. It's a rare thing on the internet when a calmly asked question gets a calm and detailed response. (In Snarky Brides! Aren't we supposed to be pulling each other's hair by now?) 

I think the main difference in my thought processes has to do with the value of the cultural/social ritual vs. the value of the legal/bureaucratic ritual, and moral judgment on participating in one but not the other. In the former, two people promise to commit their lives to each other, often in front of their community and in participation with their culture and/or religion. In the other, two people promise the government that they are now a collective legal unit, and in return the government (plus some other bureaucracies -- the insurance industry, etc) bestows benefits that they don't give to people who aren't in that type of unit. They are definitely both important -- as you correctly say, it's wrong to say that the legal one isn't important. But I don't see them as the same thing or as equivalent things, so I don't follow the statement that it is morally wrong for them to occur at different times, or morally right for them to occur at the same time. I also don't think it's right to say that the legal commitment is the more significant one -- if that's the case, we're judging the Hmong wedding as fake/PPD/not as "real" as a legal one, which I personally can't agree with.

 

I also admit some resistance to the culture -- the phrase "PPD" is already crazy demeaning (I kinda crack up seeing people use it and "wedding-industrial complex" in the same post -- enlightened enough to realize the wedding industry is trying to manipulate you, but not enough to avoid using a heavily gendered and judgmental insult, eh?), ditto "fake wedding" (per reasons given above), and the amount of rage and cruelty surrounding it all is pretty over the top. 

flantastic

damnthetorpedoes said:

@anjemon I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to write your book. It's a rare thing on the internet when a calmly asked question gets a calm and detailed response. (In Snarky Brides! Aren't we supposed to be pulling each other's hair by now?) 

I think the main difference in my thought processes has to do with the value of the cultural/social ritual vs. the value of the legal/bureaucratic ritual, and moral judgment on participating in one but not the other. In the former, two people promise to commit their lives to each other, often in front of their community and in participation with their culture and/or religion. In the other, two people promise the government that they are now a collective legal unit, and in return the government (plus some other bureaucracies -- the insurance industry, etc) bestows benefits that they don't give to people who aren't in that type of unit. They are definitely both important -- as you correctly say, it's wrong to say that the legal one isn't important. But I don't see them as the same thing or as equivalent things, so I don't follow the statement that it is morally wrong for them to occur at different times, or morally right for them to occur at the same time. I also don't think it's right to say that the legal commitment is the more significant one -- if that's the case, we're judging the Hmong wedding as fake/PPD/not as "real" as a legal one, which I personally can't agree with.

 

I also admit some resistance to the culture -- the phrase "PPD" is already crazy demeaning (I kinda crack up seeing people use it and "wedding-industrial complex" in the same post -- enlightened enough to realize the wedding industry is trying to manipulate you, but not enough to avoid using a heavily gendered and judgmental insult, eh?), ditto "fake wedding" (per reasons given above), and the amount of rage and cruelty surrounding it all is pretty over the top. 

My religion says that it is wrong for me to defraud the government for my own purposes. Therefore, if I take my religion seriously enough for that to be the ceremony which truly matters to me (I do and it was), I should also take it seriously enough not to present myself to the government as married when I don't believe myself to be (because the religious ceremony hasn't happened yet).

If the legal benefits of marriage did not matter to me at all or somehow contradicted my religion, the responsible thing would be not to get them. If they do matter to me, and I believe they can be compatible with my religious marriage, and they can be done on the same day (as is possible in the US) it would be irresponsible (and wrong, per my religion) of me to do it earlier just for convenience.

If I consider my religious marriage to be my "true" marriage, I also have the responsibility to ensure that I present myself as married to the government when that happens and not before. My religion would say this, and the government would say this. When a couple plans a PPD, one of the things which they are saying matters to them a lot generally doesn't actually matter to them in practice, or it's because they think the rules need not apply to them, and I lose respect for them.

CMGragain

In ancient times, religion had nothing to do with weddings.  Marriage was a legal contract between the father of the bride and the groom, or the groom's family.  The young couple often had no choice.
The Catholic regards marriage as one of their seven sacraments.  This was not always so, but it has only been in the last 200 years that the wedding has focused on the bride and groom.  Before that, the wedding day was a day when the families celebrated that their children were successfully (and some times profitably) married.  This is still true in many non-western cultures.
Most protestant Christian churches do not regard the marriage ceremony as a holy sacrament.  (I think the Episcopalians still do.)  It is a legal contract between the bride and groom, and the church is offering to bless their union.  In the USA, ministers, rabbis, and priests are licensed to perform legal ceremonies.  With the exception of two states (PA and CO) the marriage is not legal until the officiant signs the license, along with witnesses.  The rules do vary by state.  Of course, you are just as married if a licensed judge, justice of the peace, or state recognized officiant performs the marriage.  There is absolutely NO REASON to have two ceremonies in the USA.
In Europe, and some other countries, religious ceremonies are not a legal marriage.  In  those countries, the couple must be married at the courthouse.  If they desire a religious ceremony, they will usually have it within 24 hours of their legal marriage.  In many communities there is a procession from the courthouse to the church for the religious ceremony on the same day.  If your wedding is taking place in one of these countries, you are free to have two ceremonies if you want a religious ceremony.
A wedding is when your legal status changes from two single people to that of a married couple.  The date you are legally married is the date that is on your completed license which is usually sent in by your officiant.  You cannot do this twice.  Your status changes only once (per partner) and once you are legally married you cannot have another wedding because you will already be wed.
What is so hard to understand about this?

dresdendoll

CMGragain said:

In Europe, and some other countries, religious ceremonies are not a legal marriage.  In  those countries, the couple must be married at the courthouse.  If they desire a religious ceremony, they will usually have it within 24 hours of their legal marriage.  In many communities there is a procession from the courthouse to the church for the religious ceremony on the same day.  If your wedding is taking place in one of these countries, you are free to have two ceremonies if you want a religious ceremony.

I generally agree with this but even then I have seen situations that I would count as a PPD. 

One of my good friends in Germany got married in the courthouse a few months before their first child was due and they had the religious ceremony a year later. Apparently getting legally married before the child was born made things easier with the birth certificate, which I don't fully understand. She still wanted to have a "real wedding" with the pretty dress and while not being pregnant. 

To top this all off I was still living in Germany at the time of the courthouse ceremony and wasn't invited because it was "just the courthouse ceremony" (her words). I was moving to the US for grad school a few months after her courthouse ceremony and she knew that I wouldn't be able to come to her religious ceremony and reception because they were happening during the school semester (money was an issue as well, obviously). I told her about my plans and she kept brushing it off. Then she got mad at me for not coming to her PPD. She felt like I wasn't valuing her enough to come to her wedding and I felt like she wasn't valuing me enough to invite me to her legal ceremony. It was pretty frustrating and I'm still hurt by it to this date. /rant

Edited to fix typos.

anjemon

damnthetorpedoes said:@anjemon I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to write your book. It's a rare thing on the internet when a calmly asked question gets a calm and detailed response. (In Snarky Brides! Aren't we supposed to be pulling each other's hair by now?) 
I think the main difference in my thought processes has to do with the value of the cultural/social ritual vs. the value of the legal/bureaucratic ritual, and moral judgment on participating in one but not the other. In the former, two people promise to commit their lives to each other, often in front of their community and in participation with their culture and/or religion. In the other, two people promise the government that they are now a collective legal unit, and in return the government (plus some other bureaucracies -- the insurance industry, etc) bestows benefits that they don't give to people who aren't in that type of unit. They are definitely both important -- as you correctly say, it's wrong to say that the legal one isn't important. But I don't see them as the same thing or as equivalent things, so I don't follow the statement that it is morally wrong for them to occur at different times, or morally right for them to occur at the same time. I also don't think it's right to say that the legal commitment is the more significant one -- if that's the case, we're judging the Hmong wedding as fake/PPD/not as "real" as a legal one, which I personally can't agree with. 
I also admit some resistance to the culture -- the phrase "PPD" is already crazy demeaning (I kinda crack up seeing people use it and "wedding-industrial complex" in the same post -- enlightened enough to realize the wedding industry is trying to manipulate you, but not enough to avoid using a heavily gendered and judgmental insult, eh?), ditto "fake wedding" (per reasons given above), and the amount of rage and cruelty surrounding it all is pretty over the top. 

----------------------------BOX BOX BOX --------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry I sort of posted and ran. I don't get on much on the weekends.
My question for you is, why aren't they the same or equivalent if the couple is planning to do them both? Because those are the couples we have issues with. Couples who want to be both legally and religiously married. Or even couples who want to be legally married and then "legally" married by another person later when everyone can see.

Why can't they do them both at the same time? Because it's easier? That can be said about a lot of things about weddings. And most of those things are somehow inconvenient or rude to your guests. 

But honestly, the term "fake" wedding is true. A wedding is when you (general you) pledge before God and country to be together for the rest of your lives. If you've already done that, what you're doing is re-enacting the real wedding. Adding a religious person or tons of guests doesn't change the fact that God would probably already consider you married. And the government definitely does. It's a show wedding so you can play a part. And if you just wanted to appease God, you would have your other wedding in a church with just a pastor. Or in a courthouse with a judge. Not in a big room full of people. That's probably just pleasing yourself.

Edited to add boxes. Geez TK.

kellyem2

I guess I'm in the minority here. I think in most cases it doesn't really matter when the couple gets married. That's personal to them and they don't have to justify how they make their vows to each other to anyone, especially random strangers on the internet.

I can understand being annoyed if people lie about getting married, but if it's that upsetting to you just don't go. You don't get to sit there and be smug because these people aren't doing their wedding "the right way." Seriously, you don't know all the details about why they set things up the way they did. Maybe their parents asked them to go ahead and have the wedding. Maye their timeline got moved for some reason. You. Don't. Know.

And even if you did, it's not your place to decide what weddings count and what don't. It's beyond rude and makes you look like a huge brat. You're just as bad as the people who show up to weddings talking about how this marriage is a disaster and the couple is bound to get divorced in a couple years.

Yes, seriously, you are being that tacky.

I mean, let's be honest, most guests aren't going to weddings because they're really excited to see these people exchange their vows. You're there because you want the free food and booze and you want to party. So if you're going to complain about someone throwing their wedding for the same reasons you're being a huge hypocrite.

mikenberger

kellyem2 said:

I guess I'm in the minority here. I think in most cases it doesn't really matter when the couple gets married. That's personal to them and they don't have to justify how they make their vows to each other to anyone, especially random strangers on the internet.

I can understand being annoyed if people lie about getting married, but if it's that upsetting to you just don't go. You don't get to sit there and be smug because these people aren't doing their wedding "the right way." Seriously, you don't know all the details about why they set things up the way they did. Maybe their parents asked them to go ahead and have the wedding. Maye their timeline got moved for some reason. You. Don't. Know.

And even if you did, it's not your place to decide what weddings count and what don't. It's beyond rude and makes you look like a huge brat. You're just as bad as the people who show up to weddings talking about how this marriage is a disaster and the couple is bound to get divorced in a couple years.

Yes, seriously, you are being that tacky.

I mean, let's be honest, most guests aren't going to weddings because they're really excited to see these people exchange their vows. You're there because you want the free food and booze and you want to party. So if you're going to complain about someone throwing their wedding for the same reasons you're being a huge hypocrite.

So you think it's perfectly okay to deceive your friends into thinking they're seeing you get married when you're already married?

Yup. Sounds like a great friendship.

flantastic

kellyem2 said:

I guess I'm in the minority here. I think in most cases it doesn't really matter when the couple gets married. That's personal to them and they don't have to justify how they make their vows to each other to anyone, especially random strangers on the internet.

I can understand being annoyed if people lie about getting married, but if it's that upsetting to you just don't go. You don't get to sit there and be smug because these people aren't doing their wedding "the right way." Seriously, you don't know all the details about why they set things up the way they did. Maybe their parents asked them to go ahead and have the wedding. Maye their timeline got moved for some reason. You. Don't. Know.

And even if you did, it's not your place to decide what weddings count and what don't. It's beyond rude and makes you look like a huge brat. You're just as bad as the people who show up to weddings talking about how this marriage is a disaster and the couple is bound to get divorced in a couple years.

Yes, seriously, you are being that tacky.

I mean, let's be honest, most guests aren't going to weddings because they're really excited to see these people exchange their vows. You're there because you want the free food and booze and you want to party. So if you're going to complain about someone throwing their wedding for the same reasons you're being a huge hypocrite.

First bolded:

The whole point, if they're lying, is that you usually don't know until after you've locked yourself into a trip that you might not otherwise have taken, or in many cases until after the reenactment party itself. You don't know until it's too late that they're lying, which is part of what makes it upsetting - they took away your ability to consider all the facts and decide not to go. You thought you were watching something special and it turns out they just wanted to force you into taking your vacation on their terms.

Second bolded:

Wrong. People who have their shit straight go to see two people actually pledge their lives to one another, and would be disappointed to find it was a reenactment of a real, legal, commitment that already happened. I am sorry for you if this is the reason you go to most weddings.

redoryx

kellyem2 said:

I guess I'm in the minority here. I think in most cases it doesn't really matter when the couple gets married. That's personal to them and they don't have to justify how they make their vows to each other to anyone, especially random strangers on the internet.

I can understand being annoyed if people lie about getting married, but if it's that upsetting to you just don't go. You don't get to sit there and be smug because these people aren't doing their wedding "the right way." Seriously, you don't know all the details about why they set things up the way they did. Maybe their parents asked them to go ahead and have the wedding. Maye their timeline got moved for some reason. You. Don't. Know.

And even if you did, it's not your place to decide what weddings count and what don't. It's beyond rude and makes you look like a huge brat. You're just as bad as the people who show up to weddings talking about how this marriage is a disaster and the couple is bound to get divorced in a couple years.

Yes, seriously, you are being that tacky.

I mean, let's be honest, most guests aren't going to weddings because they're really excited to see these people exchange their vows. You're there because you want the free food and booze and you want to party. So if you're going to complain about someone throwing their wedding for the same reasons you're being a huge hypocrite.

Wrong. I'm there because two people I know are committing their lives to each other and I want to see it happen. So, yeah, I'd be pissed as hell if I found out that they'd actually made that commitment at another time and place and lied about it so they could still have Their Day. Because, honestly, if the vows are all so "personal" to them then why bother with the big fancy shindig with 150 guests? Why not just elope? 

Methinks you're projecting on why YOU go to weddings and/or you had or are planning a PPD