Cruise Wedding

LondonLisa

AW3380 said:

My point is when you are considered "legally" married is a very gray area and can vary by state. 

In Missouri, it clearly states that you are legally married when you get a license, have a ceremony by a registered person, and then file it with the county clerk within 15 days of said ceremony. Pretty black and white.

Maggie0829

LondonLisa said:

AW3380 said:

My point is when you are considered "legally" married is a very gray area and can vary by state. 

In Missouri, it clearly states that you are legally married when you get a license, have a ceremony by a registered person, and then file it with the county clerk within 15 days of said ceremony. Pretty black and white.

And that is pretty much how it is all over the US.  I don't think many states really want a ton of "grey areas" when it comes to stating if you are or are not legally married.  Think about how confusing as hell that would be.

Heffalump

Maggie0829 said:

LondonLisa said:

AW3380 said:

My point is when you are considered "legally" married is a very gray area and can vary by state. 

In Missouri, it clearly states that you are legally married when you get a license, have a ceremony by a registered person, and then file it with the county clerk within 15 days of said ceremony. Pretty black and white.

And that is pretty much how it is all over the US.  I don't think many states really want a ton of "grey areas" when it comes to stating if you are or are not legally married.  Think about how confusing as hell that would be.

That was my thought.  Isn't the entire point of the legal process to eliminate these gray areas.  Buffy says they're married, Chet says they're not, and the presence/absence of a marriage certificate (not license) settles the matter.

lyndausvi

AW3380 said:

My point is when you are considered "legally" married is a very gray area and can vary by state. 

not really.    Getting a license does not make you married.    You have to have the ceremony (what is considered a ceremony varies from state to state.  In CO 2 people just have to say they agree to be married. Other states you have to have a real officiant) and then file the license.


Get license.  Do not have ceremony.  Nothing filed.   Not married.

Get license.  Have ceremony.  File license.   Married.

Do not get license.  Have ceremony.  Nothing filed.  Not married.

Now if you get the license, have the ceremony and not file the license.  This is where thing can vary.   Officially you are not married with the state because you never filed.  However, for divorce purposes they can argue the since you went through the process, had 200 witnesses at the wedding and lived as a married couple you were "married" and the assets should be dived as such.    Of course, that is a case by case situation.  Not a one size fits all thing.

thisismynickname2

Ok, no offense to the OP but when I read this I just thought it was the biggest fucking first world problem. "We don't want to get married next to a glacier."
Look, I grew up in the super boring, prairie grass and corn filled Midwest and I think it would be amazing to get married outdoors with mountains and glaciers as a backdrop (assuming it's summer and warm enough for guests). I've been to Alaska once briefly and many people I know have cruised up there. It's beautiful! Your wedding will have amazing scenery no matter what. Get married portside or glacierside and call it a day. (Get a room with views if it's too cold.) Geez. 

Novak

.

[Deleted User]

thisismynickname said:

Ok, no offense to the OP but when I read this I just thought it was the biggest fucking first world problem. "We don't want to get married next to a glacier."
Look, I grew up in the super boring, prairie grass and corn filled Midwest and I think it would be amazing to get married outdoors with mountains and glaciers as a backdrop (assuming it's summer and warm enough for guests). I've been to Alaska once briefly and many people I know have cruised up there. It's beautiful! Your wedding will have amazing scenery no matter what. Get married portside or glacierside and call it a day. (Get a room with views if it's too cold.) Geez. 

No, I do want to get married next to a glacier! It's a glacier cruise.  I just don't want to get married ON a glacier.  Because everyone has to fly up by helicopter and its rocky terrain. ($400 per person).   Sorry for the confusion.  

TrixieJess

NovakNuptials2016 said:

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I don't really agree that she should pay for all in attendance if it is on a cruise ship. someone commented that the guests have no option. They do. the option is to go or not go.

Going would mean that they understand this isn't "JUST" a wedding, its also a vacation. she clearly stated that a different cruise route would be unacceptable because the guests want to see the glaciers, i. e. they all want to do this anyway.

That being said..... Idk what PPD stands for but I think it would be wrong to have a ceremony beforehand then a renewal on the cruise. People want to SEE you get married, not pretend to get married.

All etiquette aside, a wedding on a glacier sounds AMAZING. On our Alaskan cruise we hiked a glacier and it blew our minds, it was truly a life changing experience for us.

you may want to talk to the cruise line to see if there are any options without changing/rebooking a cruise and inconveniencing your guests. there also may be an opportunity for price breaks if there are a lot of guests attending

First, welcome to the Knot. Lurk a little and you will start to pick up things

The first bolded is all kinds of wrong because a) people tend to get limited vacation time and don't necessarily want to be told how to spend it
b) you cannot tell people how to spend their money (or time)

The second bolded: A PPD is what we refer to around here as a "Pretty Prince(ss) Day". You get one wedding day, when you are officially married, the rest is just pageantry. 

[Deleted User]

NovakNuptials2016 said:

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I don't really agree that she should pay for all in attendance if it is on a cruise ship. someone commented that the guests have no option. They do. the option is to go or not go.

Going would mean that they understand this isn't "JUST" a wedding, its also a vacation. she clearly stated that a different cruise route would be unacceptable because the guests want to see the glaciers, i. e. they all want to do this anyway.

That being said..... Idk what PPD stands for but I think it would be wrong to have a ceremony beforehand then a renewal on the cruise. People want to SEE you get married, not pretend to get married.

All etiquette aside, a wedding on a glacier sounds AMAZING. On our Alaskan cruise we hiked a glacier and it blew our minds, it was truly a life changing experience for us.

you may want to talk to the cruise line to see if there are any options without changing/rebooking a cruise and inconveniencing your guests. there also may be an opportunity for price breaks if there are a lot of guests attending

Yes, we have accepted that if its a cruise wedding a lot of people can choose not to go.  No ones booked anything yet so there is still flexibility but the problem is that a cruise coming out of alaska has limited options.  Getting married ON a glacier is sketchy because my dad used to fly helicopters and says that when landing on rocky glaciers you can catch a ski and topple easily.  Its just not safe for a large group of people and financially impractical. 

flantastic

skyhannon said:

thisismynickname said:

Ok, no offense to the OP but when I read this I just thought it was the biggest fucking first world problem. "We don't want to get married next to a glacier."
Look, I grew up in the super boring, prairie grass and corn filled Midwest and I think it would be amazing to get married outdoors with mountains and glaciers as a backdrop (assuming it's summer and warm enough for guests). I've been to Alaska once briefly and many people I know have cruised up there. It's beautiful! Your wedding will have amazing scenery no matter what. Get married portside or glacierside and call it a day. (Get a room with views if it's too cold.) Geez. 

No, I do want to get married next to a glacier! It's a glacier cruise.  I just don't want to get married ON a glacier.  Because everyone has to fly up by helicopter and its rocky terrain. ($400 per person).   Sorry for the confusion.  

Then don't. Have your wedding somewhere else in beautiful Alaska. You won't be getting married next to the glacier anyway per your plan because it's not a real wedding.

Seriously, the importance of where you get married should dwarf the actual fact of getting married, and will do so for your guests. Don't force them to spend long international flight kind of money and then cruise kind of money and not let them actually be present for your marriage.

[Deleted User]

Spoonsey said:

I would get married on port or on a glacier, and keep the cruise optional for all your guests.  This should make both families happy -- FMIL sees you get married and your family can choose to enjoy the least expensive cruise.

You're from Singapore and marrying an American, from what I gather?  Your FMIL is unhappy with the scenario because it is against her culture to get legally married and then reenact it.  She's willing to forgo it for your and FI's happiness, but showing her you respect her cultural values over your vision will probably really mean a lot to her.

I'm also an american but half singaporean.  All the other guests are my singaporean family and they are all even more psyched then me about having a wedding on the cruise. And to them just legally with no ceremony isn't considered married because we have to to a tea ceremony with our parents to be married.  In my mom's culture you need the license and the tea ceremony to be married and you aren't married if its one and not the other. 

[Deleted User]

Heffalump said:

Maggie0829 said:

spockforprez said:

AW3380 said:

I work for a law firm that practices family law so I look at the PPD situation a little differently.  In most states, when you go to whichever government building you need to in order to obtain your marriage license once the clerk hands you the marriage license you are technically "legally" married at that point.  In the State of Missouri where I live an officiant has to certify the marriage and sign the license in order to get the marriage certificate.  But if I were to change my mind in between the short time I obtained the marriage license and the ceremony was to be held, I am still considered married in the eyes of the law and would have to go through annulment or divorce proceedings to change that.  The ceremony is solidify the marriage for religious and/or social purposes.  I am not sure how Alaska works but if its similar to Missouri this is all really a moot point because you will be legally married anyway the day you obtain your license!

I have known several people who have had a PPD and I have never personally felt insulted as a guest.  They are grown adults and its none of my business why they chose to make that decision.  I am of the unpopular opinion here but I say if your guests are fine with the cost of the cruise to attend your wedding and the plans you have made, then do what you have to do and have the event the way you envision. 

Er, is this really accurate? Doesn't a marriage license just give you permission to get married? You can't be married in most places unless you have, at minimum, the declaration of intent ("do you take so and so") witnessed by a legal officiant and then that officiant signs the certificate and files it with the courthouse. I'm not a lawyer and I can't find anything of significance on google, but do you have a source for the claim that the license itself makes you married and if you canceled your wedding you'd need a divorce?

Actually I'm pretty positive that's not true. Your license is usually only good for a certain period, maybe 30 days or 60 days depending on the state. If you don't get married within that timeframe it expires and if you tried to file it, your marriage would not be legal. I don't know, maybe Missouri is super duper special or something, but I can't see that being accurate.

My opinion on PPD... I don't see the point. I mentioned this recently, but if I were to get legally married, it wouldn't be possible for me to treat it just as "paperwork." It would be emotional and it would matter. Redoing it later would be so bizarre as to be ridiculous. Even if I was just in sweatpants (can you wear sweatpants to the courthouse?) I would consider that to be the day FH and I became husband and wife. So, to me PPD is putting the vision of white dress and big party (or in this case "wedding at sea") over the emotional and legal transformation of becoming married, and I think that's pretty lame. 

I was really scratching my head and thinking "um, that can't be right." (I am talking about AW3380's post)  I was not considered married by my state until my license was signed and submitted to the court.  Only then was I considered married.  If H or I decided to call off the wedding then our license would have just expired.  We certainly would not have had to go through an annulment or divorce proceeding just because we applied for a marriage license.

That's how it was for us, and while I'm not any sort of legal expert, I thought that was the case everywhere.

If not, then isn't pretty much every wedding a PPD?  Especially those with a waiting period between getting the license and having the ceremony?

But on the ship there would be a tea ceremony that has to be performed in order to be considered married even if the paperwork was already filed.  My family considers all those elements combined to be married not just the paperwork or not just the ceremony.  

JediElizabeth

What about your FI's other family? Have you talked to them? His mother is against this, so I would also assume that many of his extended family members would be offended by the idea. 

lyndausvi

Why can't you have a legal ceremony dockside?   Then have the tea ceremony on the ship.       MIL gets to see you legally married.  Your family gets to see the tea ceremony.  

Seems like a good compromise to me.




ETA - if AW3380's post was correct there would be ZERO reason for the license to expire.  What is the point of an experiencing license if when you pick up the license you are considered married? None, so their logic makes no sense.

[Deleted User]

lyndausvi said:

Why can't you have a legal ceremony dockside?   Then have the tea ceremony on the ship.       MIL gets to see you legally married.  Your family gets to see the tea ceremony.  

Seems like a good compromise to me.

I actually hadn't thought of that lol.  That's a great idea! Thanks!

[Deleted User]

JediElizabeth said:

What about your FI's other family? Have you talked to them? His mother is against this, so I would also assume that many of his extended family members would be offended by the idea. 

He doesn't have extended family.  It's his mom, his step dad, and his brother, and niece.  Thats it. 

kimmiinthemitten

skyhannon said:

JediElizabeth said:

What about your FI's other family? Have you talked to them? His mother is against this, so I would also assume that many of his extended family members would be offended by the idea. 

He doesn't have extended family.  It's his mom, his step dad, and his brother, and niece.  Thats it. 

Have you explained the cultural significance of the tea ceremony to his family?

[Deleted User]

kimmiinthemitten said:

skyhannon said:

JediElizabeth said:

What about your FI's other family? Have you talked to them? His mother is against this, so I would also assume that many of his extended family members would be offended by the idea. 

He doesn't have extended family.  It's his mom, his step dad, and his brother, and niece.  Thats it. 

Have you explained the cultural significance of the tea ceremony to his family?

Yes, ofcourse.  Because last year we attended my cousins wedding where my (then) bf got to participate. 

[Deleted User]

glasgowtolondon said:

So what are you going to do?

Eta: Haven't you literally just got engaged? In your other post this morning you say that you got engaged in Thailand and that you are still there.....you've already picked the venue and it cannot be changed? Okay then.

Have a PPD, don't have a PPD, no one is going to call the wedding police. Own the decision, don't come here looking for us to tell you that your situation is special and different. You know it isn't. 

Just to clarify,  yes I just got officially engaged but there was wedding talk long before from both sides of the family.  Nothing has been booked yet, I was just saying that a wedding from alaska involving a cruise has limited options because it's so far away from anything.  

Maggie0829

So why can't you get married at the port and then go on the cruise again?

lyndausvi

skyhannon said:

lyndausvi said:

Why can't you have a legal ceremony dockside?   Then have the tea ceremony on the ship.       MIL gets to see you legally married.  Your family gets to see the tea ceremony.  

Seems like a good compromise to me.

I actually hadn't thought of that lol.  That's a great idea! Thanks!

@Maggie0829   - suggested that and here is her response.

Maggie0829

lyndausvi said:

skyhannon said:

lyndausvi said:

Why can't you have a legal ceremony dockside?   Then have the tea ceremony on the ship.       MIL gets to see you legally married.  Your family gets to see the tea ceremony.  

Seems like a good compromise to me.

I actually hadn't thought of that lol.  That's a great idea! Thanks!

@Maggie0829   - suggested that and here is her response.

Ahhhh okay.  I must have missed that through all of the glacier, tea ceremony, my family doesn't care, talk.

PrettyGirlLost

AW3380 said:

My point is when you are considered "legally" married is a very gray area and can vary by state. 

No, it actually sounds like when you are considered legally married is a pretty black and white thing. . . even in Missouri.

Sounds like there was some fuckery going on in that case you cited.

Maggie0829

PrettyGirlLost said:

AW3380 said:

My point is when you are considered "legally" married is a very gray area and can vary by state. 

No, it actually sounds like when you are considered legally married is a pretty black and white thing. . . even in Missouri.

Sounds like there was some fuckery going on in that case you cited.

The only thing I can think of is if the couple was considered common law married in another state that recognizes common law and then MO recognized that marriage thus the need for divorce/annul

InLoveInQueens

AW3380 said:

My point is when you are considered "legally" married is a very gray area and can vary by state. 

That's not true in any sense of the word, either you seriously misunderstood the case or there are other points you weren't informed of, the law is very clear on what you need to do to be married, stop spewing nonsense to try and convince people that PPDs are ok because you don't understand the law and marriage.

You should probably do more research on this topic before your own wedding.

scrunchythief

Maggie0829 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

AW3380 said:

My point is when you are considered "legally" married is a very gray area and can vary by state. 

No, it actually sounds like when you are considered legally married is a pretty black and white thing. . . even in Missouri.

Sounds like there was some fuckery going on in that case you cited.

The only thing I can think of is if the couple was considered common law married in another state that recognizes common law and then MO recognized that marriage thus the need for divorce/annul

Or maybe it was a PPD.  Maybe they got married at the court house but only thought of it as the "paperwork."  Then when the redo ceremony didn't happen, they were surprised that the law considered them married.  Just speculation, of course.

levioosa

scrunchythief said:

Maggie0829 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

AW3380 said:

My point is when you are considered "legally" married is a very gray area and can vary by state. 

No, it actually sounds like when you are considered legally married is a pretty black and white thing. . . even in Missouri.

Sounds like there was some fuckery going on in that case you cited.

The only thing I can think of is if the couple was considered common law married in another state that recognizes common law and then MO recognized that marriage thus the need for divorce/annul

Or maybe it was a PPD.  Maybe they got married at the court house but only thought of it as the "paperwork."  Then when the redo ceremony didn't happen, they were surprised that the law considered them married.  Just speculation, of course.

Yeah.  It's not a grey area.  This was the reason one of my friends (who I mentioned in another thread), didn't get legally married.  They went to the courthouse, got the certificate, but then forgot it for the ceremony and never signed or filed it.  They weren't legally married.  They ended up reapplying, signing, and filing it a few months ago...nearly a year after their "wedding" took place.  They considered themselves married, but they weren't.  They have also given me a lot of flack for considering eloping in the future because, "the marriage doesn't mean as much unless you have all of your friends and family to celebrate with you and make it real."  Bitch, my elopement/courthouse ceremony is going to be more real than your fake wedding.  The presence of people isn't what "makes it real."  

ILoveBeachMusic

AW3380 said:

@spockforprez I thought the same as you until we recently handled a divorce case where upon research we learned the couple was legally married despite not going through with their ceremony and filing their marriage license.  They were hoping to negotiate a settlement between them out of court but they had to go through legal divorce proceedings.  Now, in other states things may vary, but when the attorneys did the research they found most states considered couples legally married when the license was obtained.  In MO you are supposed to have an officiant certify and sign the license in order to obtain the marriage certificate but in this case even that did not matter. 

In Illinois, the officiant doesn't even sign the license - neither do the witnesses. So I guess you are considered married as soon as you get the license.

themosthappy91

TrixieJess said:

NovakNuptials2016 said:

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I don't really agree that she should pay for all in attendance if it is on a cruise ship. someone commented that the guests have no option. They do. the option is to go or not go.

Going would mean that they understand this isn't "JUST" a wedding, its also a vacation. she clearly stated that a different cruise route would be unacceptable because the guests want to see the glaciers, i. e. they all want to do this anyway.

That being said..... Idk what PPD stands for but I think it would be wrong to have a ceremony beforehand then a renewal on the cruise. People want to SEE you get married, not pretend to get married.

All etiquette aside, a wedding on a glacier sounds AMAZING. On our Alaskan cruise we hiked a glacier and it blew our minds, it was truly a life changing experience for us.

you may want to talk to the cruise line to see if there are any options without changing/rebooking a cruise and inconveniencing your guests. there also may be an opportunity for price breaks if there are a lot of guests attending

First, welcome to the Knot. Lurk a little and you will start to pick up things

The first bolded is all kinds of wrong because a) people tend to get limited vacation time and don't necessarily want to be told how to spend it
b) you cannot tell people how to spend their money (or time)

The second bolded: A PPD is what we refer to around here as a "Pretty Prince(ss) Day". You get one wedding day, when you are officially married, the rest is just pageantry. 

I weirdly see her point though- you're not telling anyone how to spend their time or money any more than you are when you invite them to any other wedding. It's an invitation and they can decline, they same way a lot of people would decline to spend money and take vacation days to fly to a wedding across the country. 

I guess at the most basic level I don't see how a cruise is any different than a destination wedding- they are both presumably more expensive and time-consuming options for having a wedding, but if people want to go they can go and if they don't they don't have to. I've never really thought about this question before though so there's some angle I could be missing.

lyndausvi

themosthappy91 said:

TrixieJess said:

NovakNuptials2016 said:

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I don't really agree that she should pay for all in attendance if it is on a cruise ship. someone commented that the guests have no option. They do. the option is to go or not go.

Going would mean that they understand this isn't "JUST" a wedding, its also a vacation. she clearly stated that a different cruise route would be unacceptable because the guests want to see the glaciers, i. e. they all want to do this anyway.

That being said..... Idk what PPD stands for but I think it would be wrong to have a ceremony beforehand then a renewal on the cruise. People want to SEE you get married, not pretend to get married.

All etiquette aside, a wedding on a glacier sounds AMAZING. On our Alaskan cruise we hiked a glacier and it blew our minds, it was truly a life changing experience for us.

you may want to talk to the cruise line to see if there are any options without changing/rebooking a cruise and inconveniencing your guests. there also may be an opportunity for price breaks if there are a lot of guests attending

First, welcome to the Knot. Lurk a little and you will start to pick up things

The first bolded is all kinds of wrong because a) people tend to get limited vacation time and don't necessarily want to be told how to spend it
b) you cannot tell people how to spend their money (or time)

The second bolded: A PPD is what we refer to around here as a "Pretty Prince(ss) Day". You get one wedding day, when you are officially married, the rest is just pageantry. 

I weirdly see her point though- you're not telling anyone how to spend their time or money any more than you are when you invite them to any other wedding. It's an invitation and they can decline, they same way a lot of people would decline to spend money and take vacation days to fly to a wedding across the country. 

I guess at the most basic level I don't see how a cruise is any different than a destination wedding- they are both presumably more expensive and time-consuming options for having a wedding, but if people want to go they can go and if they don't they don't have to. I've never really thought about this question before though so there's some angle I could be missing.

Because at normal destination and/or OOT weddings the guests can make their own plans.  They can arrive into town when they want and stay as long as they want.  

You can't do that with cruises.  Either the 5,7, 10, whatever days the cruise sails for or nothing.    You only have one option for lodging.    


I personally do not think they should have to pay, however I think it's a LOT to ask of guests.    Some people only get 2 weeks off a year. Depending on the location it can be a good 7 days just to see a wedding.  Again a lot of ask of guests to witness you getting married.