Etiquette

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

2456

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

  • lovesclimbinglovesclimbing Alaska member
    Seventh Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer


























































































    MandyMost said:





























































































    MandyMost said:








































































    MandyMost said:



















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

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

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

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










































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

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




































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


































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
































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

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






























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




























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

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

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






















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


















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





    STUCK IN A BOX

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










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

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

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








    But how is this any different than people who get married at the courthouse before a DW because it's easier? Most couples who do it don't combine finances, change names etc beforehand their DW, they just don't want to deal with the hassle. 


    They're married because if the religious ceremony didn't place, they're have to get divorced. Also, god forbid, let's say an accident happened. Would one of them turn back in the life insurance money as they weren't 'really' married?

    I just don't think being religious gives you an excuse to have a different set of rules apply to you. During a court house marriage, you gave to say things like 'I take you to be my wife, from this day forth etc etc'. It doesn't say ' I take you to be my wife 6 months from now at our religious ceremony'. Because if they don't consider those real vows, they lied and committed fraud, as the didn't intend to live as a married couple, and that can hardly be considered a Christian Value. 


    Because they didn't do it because it was easier, and they didn't do it because it would be a hassle to do it at the PPD. They got married in their hometown in the US. It would have been just as easy to do it at their religious wedding. I'm pretty sure they didn't have life insurance, but if they did, yea, they probably would have given it back. 

    They fully knew knew they were getting legally married, and I wouldn't say they didn't consider them to be real.

  • LondonLisaLondonLisa London, UK member
    Eighth Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers






    Ridiculous. No special religious snowflakes, you don't get a pass on a PPD because you decided to get married legally but didn't really mean it. Such nonsense. 







    STARMOON44MyNameIsNotPrettyGirlLost
  • flantasticflantastic The Midwest member
    Sixth Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers


























    MandyMost said:

























































    MandyMost said:
















































    MandyMost said:













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

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

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

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






























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

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
























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






















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




















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

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


















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
















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

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

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










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






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

    ETA: let me rephrase - maybe not for *whatever* reason, but you do get that money back. If you don't, you made a shitty contract that your agent should have warned you about. 


    If you don't get it back, it's because you broke a term of the contract. (Yes, it's your responsibility to be sure a good contract is in place, but people do break decent contracts and lose their earnest money, deservedly.) I imagine you don't break a betrothal unless something analogous happens. Really, I think getting legally married is a stupid way to try to accomplish what they wanted, but hey, I see how they thought it was the closest thing.

    If you guys want to side-eye what you consider a PPD because you think of marriage as a different thing than they do, then as I said above, that's fine. You don't have to give them a pass. But they definitely think differently about what the legal marriage means than you do, and they're not being underhanded or insincere in their belief. So we can't imply that it's somehow dishonest. If the legal requirements for legal marriage in the state involve sex, living together, combining finances, etc, then it's fraud, but otherwise no, I don't think so.
    charlotte989875














  • But how is this any different than people who get married at the courthouse before a DW because it's easier? Most couples who do it don't combine finances, change names etc beforehand their DW, they just don't want to deal with the hassle. 

    They're married because if the religious ceremony didn't place, they're have to get divorced. Also, god forbid, let's say an accident happened. Would one of them turn back in the life insurance money as they weren't 'really' married?

    I just don't think being religious gives you an excuse to have a different set of rules apply to you. During a court house marriage, you gave to say things like 'I take you to be my wife, from this day forth etc etc'. It doesn't say ' I take you to be my wife 6 months from now at our religious ceremony'. Because if they don't consider those real vows, they lied and committed fraud, as the didn't intend to live as a married couple, and that can hardly be considered a Christian Value. 


    I imagine that's half the point in these kinds of ultra-religious, anachronistic arrangements. The woman in this case wouldn't have life insurance, but the man would. If anything happened to her, he could easily marry someone else, but if anything happened to her, she would no longer be "pure" and get insurance money in order to help take care of her in case she couldn't marry. At least I assume so...It sounds vaguely Austenean and right up there with the kind of stories people tell about "old traditions" of marriage.

    Of course, that's exactly why I agree with @LondonLisa that no women should be supporting this kind of behavior. I would side-eye this kind of ultra-religious arrangement a lot more than someone just being self-centered enough to have a PPD, because at least the PPD isn't tied to such extreme systemic sexism.
    OurWildKingdomPrettyGirlLost
  • flantasticflantastic The Midwest member
    Sixth Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers






















    But how is this any different than people who get married at the courthouse before a DW because it's easier? Most couples who do it don't combine finances, change names etc beforehand their DW, they just don't want to deal with the hassle. 

    They're married because if the religious ceremony didn't place, they're have to get divorced. Also, god forbid, let's say an accident happened. Would one of them turn back in the life insurance money as they weren't 'really' married?

    I just don't think being religious gives you an excuse to have a different set of rules apply to you. During a court house marriage, you gave to say things like 'I take you to be my wife, from this day forth etc etc'. It doesn't say ' I take you to be my wife 6 months from now at our religious ceremony'. Because if they don't consider those real vows, they lied and committed fraud, as the didn't intend to live as a married couple, and that can hardly be considered a Christian Value. 




    I imagine that's half the point in these kinds of ultra-religious, anachronistic arrangements. The woman in this case wouldn't have life insurance, but the man would. If anything happened to her, he could easily marry someone else, but if anything happened to her, she would no longer be "pure" and get insurance money in order to help take care of her in case she couldn't marry. At least I assume so...It sounds vaguely Austenean and right up there with the kind of stories people tell about "old traditions" of marriage.

    Of course, that's exactly why I agree with @LondonLisa that no women should be supporting this kind of behavior. I would side-eye this kind of ultra-religious arrangement a lot more than someone just being self-centered enough to have a PPD, because at least the PPD isn't tied to such extreme systemic sexism.


    Where was that said/how do we know the bolded? I must have missed it.

    Assuming stuff like this, though, is the same way we get people saying that Muslim women who choose to veil themselves in some way are oppressed, when that's not actually how it works. I try to stay away from assuming that there's an inherent power structure like that unless I actually do know the details of the belief.
    charlotte989875ILoveBeachMusicgeebee908ei34
  • lovesclimbinglovesclimbing Alaska member
    Seventh Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer
    We'll just have to agree to disagree. I see it as different. While I may think it's silly, I do not think it is anywhere on the same level as someone getting married ahead of time and keeping it a secret so they can reap benefits sooner than it takes to plan a wedding. 

    MandyMost
































  • But how is this any different than people who get married at the courthouse before a DW because it's easier? Most couples who do it don't combine finances, change names etc beforehand their DW, they just don't want to deal with the hassle. 

    They're married because if the religious ceremony didn't place, they're have to get divorced. Also, god forbid, let's say an accident happened. Would one of them turn back in the life insurance money as they weren't 'really' married?

    I just don't think being religious gives you an excuse to have a different set of rules apply to you. During a court house marriage, you gave to say things like 'I take you to be my wife, from this day forth etc etc'. It doesn't say ' I take you to be my wife 6 months from now at our religious ceremony'. Because if they don't consider those real vows, they lied and committed fraud, as the didn't intend to live as a married couple, and that can hardly be considered a Christian Value. 






    I imagine that's half the point in these kinds of ultra-religious, anachronistic arrangements. The woman in this case wouldn't have life insurance, but the man would. If anything happened to her, he could easily marry someone else, but if anything happened to her, she would no longer be "pure" and get insurance money in order to help take care of her in case she couldn't marry. At least I assume so...It sounds vaguely Austenean and right up there with the kind of stories people tell about "old traditions" of marriage.

    Of course, that's exactly why I agree with @LondonLisa that no women should be supporting this kind of behavior. I would side-eye this kind of ultra-religious arrangement a lot more than someone just being self-centered enough to have a PPD, because at least the PPD isn't tied to such extreme systemic sexism.




    Where was that said/how do we know the bolded? I must have missed it.

    Assuming stuff like this, though, is the same way we get people saying that Muslim women who choose to veil themselves in some way are oppressed, when that's not actually how it works. I try to stay away from assuming that there's an inherent power structure like that unless I actually do know the details of the belief.


    flantastic, I was quoting this from @LondonLisa
    (I think? So many quotes to follow up!!):

    "They're married because if the religious ceremony didn't place, they're have to get divorced. Also, god forbid, let's say an accident happened. Would one of them turn back in the life insurance money as they weren't 'really' married?"
    InLoveInQueens
  • I think this is getting taken to the extremes and admittedly I'm PPD-light; it just doesn't bother me all that much (and before anyone says it, I know I differ from etiquette, not trying to say my opinion is etiquette). 

    But it really if someone holds non-majoritarian religious views, but society and the government has determined a legal standard for marriage that is different than the religious practices the couple lives out, is there really not an exception to the rule? 



  • I think this is getting taken to the extremes and admittedly I'm PPD-light; it just doesn't bother me all that much (and before anyone says it, I know I differ from etiquette, not trying to say my opinion is etiquette). 

    But it really if someone holds non-majoritarian religious views, but society and the government has determined a legal standard for marriage that is different than the religious practices the couple lives out, is there really not an exception to the rule? 



    Sure. If you don't like what legal marriage is, don't do it. 
  • LondonLisaLondonLisa London, UK member
    Eighth Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers


    I think this is getting taken to the extremes and admittedly I'm PPD-light; it just doesn't bother me all that much (and before anyone says it, I know I differ from etiquette, not trying to say my opinion is etiquette). 

    But it really if someone holds non-majoritarian religious views, but society and the government has determined a legal standard for marriage that is different than the religious practices the couple lives out, is there really not an exception to the rule? 



    In the United States, can you name one religion where a couple cannot get a marriage license, have their registered religious officiant perform a ceremony (whatever ceremony works for their religion) and then sign the license afterwards to be married? 
    SP29DrillSergeantCatInLoveInQueens






  • I think this is getting taken to the extremes and admittedly I'm PPD-light; it just doesn't bother me all that much (and before anyone says it, I know I differ from etiquette, not trying to say my opinion is etiquette). 

    But it really if someone holds non-majoritarian religious views, but society and the government has determined a legal standard for marriage that is different than the religious practices the couple lives out, is there really not an exception to the rule? 





    In the United States, can you name one religion where a couple cannot get a marriage license, have their registered religious officiant perform a ceremony (whatever ceremony works for their religion) and then sign the license afterwards to be married? 


    Sure. Fundamentalist Mormon sects cannot perform legally binding plural marriages. 
    charlotte989875
  • LondonLisaLondonLisa London, UK member
    Eighth Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers
    edited April 2017


















    I think this is getting taken to the extremes and admittedly I'm PPD-light; it just doesn't bother me all that much (and before anyone says it, I know I differ from etiquette, not trying to say my opinion is etiquette). 

    But it really if someone holds non-majoritarian religious views, but society and the government has determined a legal standard for marriage that is different than the religious practices the couple lives out, is there really not an exception to the rule? 









    In the United States, can you name one religion where a couple cannot get a marriage license, have their registered religious officiant perform a ceremony (whatever ceremony works for their religion) and then sign the license afterwards to be married? 






    Sure. Fundamentalist Mormon sects cannot perform legally binding plural marriages. 




    But this is down to bigamy laws, rather than 2 consenting adults belonging to an oppressed religious minority that the government won't recognise. As in, this problem isn't solved by the couple going to the courthouse and then performing their own religious PPD later as the only way they can have a legally recognised union. 

    (Mind you, I am actually fairly pro poly relationship laws if everyone in the situation is a consenting adult, but I think that is very different to religious PPD exemptions).
    InLoveInQueensahoywedding




















  • I think this is getting taken to the extremes and admittedly I'm PPD-light; it just doesn't bother me all that much (and before anyone says it, I know I differ from etiquette, not trying to say my opinion is etiquette). 

    But it really if someone holds non-majoritarian religious views, but society and the government has determined a legal standard for marriage that is different than the religious practices the couple lives out, is there really not an exception to the rule? 









    In the United States, can you name one religion where a couple cannot get a marriage license, have their registered religious officiant perform a ceremony (whatever ceremony works for their religion) and then sign the license afterwards to be married? 






    Sure. Fundamentalist Mormon sects cannot perform legally binding plural marriages. 




    But this is down to bigamy laws, rather than 2 consenting adults belonging to an oppressed religious minority that the government won't recognise. As in, this problem isn't solved by the couple going to the courthouse and then performing their own religious PPD later. 

    (Mind you, I am actually fairly pro poly relationship laws if everyone in the situation is a consenting adult).


    Oh yes that is a different question. 
  • LondonLisaLondonLisa London, UK member
    Eighth Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers






























    I think this is getting taken to the extremes and admittedly I'm PPD-light; it just doesn't bother me all that much (and before anyone says it, I know I differ from etiquette, not trying to say my opinion is etiquette). 

    But it really if someone holds non-majoritarian religious views, but society and the government has determined a legal standard for marriage that is different than the religious practices the couple lives out, is there really not an exception to the rule? 











    In the United States, can you name one religion where a couple cannot get a marriage license, have their registered religious officiant perform a ceremony (whatever ceremony works for their religion) and then sign the license afterwards to be married? 








    Sure. Fundamentalist Mormon sects cannot perform legally binding plural marriages. 






    But this is down to bigamy laws, rather than 2 consenting adults belonging to an oppressed religious minority that the government won't recognise. As in, this problem isn't solved by the couple going to the courthouse and then performing their own religious PPD later. 

    (Mind you, I am actually fairly pro poly relationship laws if everyone in the situation is a consenting adult).




    Oh yes that is a different question. 


    What I was trying to get at was from what I understand, in the US, there is no reason, no matter how religious or non religious, that two, unmarried consenting adults cannot get a license, perform whatever ceremony they prefer to the degree of their religion or not religion, sign the license and be married all in the same ceremony. 

    It isn't like some countries where civil and religious weddings are completely separate. 

    Therefore, there is no excuse for a religious PPD exemption because you are just that little bit 'extra' pious. 
    STARMOON44SP29
  • flantasticflantastic The Midwest member
    Sixth Anniversary 2500 Comments 500 Love Its 5 Answers










































    I think this is getting taken to the extremes and admittedly I'm PPD-light; it just doesn't bother me all that much (and before anyone says it, I know I differ from etiquette, not trying to say my opinion is etiquette). 

    But it really if someone holds non-majoritarian religious views, but society and the government has determined a legal standard for marriage that is different than the religious practices the couple lives out, is there really not an exception to the rule? 













    In the United States, can you name one religion where a couple cannot get a marriage license, have their registered religious officiant perform a ceremony (whatever ceremony works for their religion) and then sign the license afterwards to be married? 










    Sure. Fundamentalist Mormon sects cannot perform legally binding plural marriages. 








    But this is down to bigamy laws, rather than 2 consenting adults belonging to an oppressed religious minority that the government won't recognise. As in, this problem isn't solved by the couple going to the courthouse and then performing their own religious PPD later. 

    (Mind you, I am actually fairly pro poly relationship laws if everyone in the situation is a consenting adult).






    Oh yes that is a different question. 




    What I was trying to get at was from what I understand, in the US, there is no reason, no matter how religious or non religious, that two, unmarried consenting adults cannot get a license, perform whatever ceremony they prefer to the degree of their religion or not religion, sign the license and be married all in the same ceremony. 

    It isn't like some countries where civil and religious weddings are completely separate. 

    Therefore, there is no excuse for a religious PPD exemption because you are just that little bit 'extra' pious. 


    I can understand that. They didn't have to up the betrothal ante by getting legally married - they could have just had all one ceremony like everyone else and done something else.

    and @JediElizabeth - I saw that, but I don't understand how it would have one-sided application. Does only the man have a life insurance policy?
  • mrsjapanmrsjapan Japan member
    Second Anniversary 10 Comments
    edited April 2017
    Ok, so to give some context as to why I posted this poll:

    My situation is one of those that is tricky for people to accept...my fiance/husband and I have signed marriage papers in Japan. No ceremony or courthouse or anything. Literally went to the city hall with all our papers and they gave us a marriage certificate. We had already lived together unmarried in the States, but when we both moved to Japan for work, our jobs couldn't guarantee that we would live close to each other or together at all unless we were married, hence why we lived apart (Yokohama for me, Okayama for him). It just was stressful for us so we got the papers signed, which allowed me to get a job in his town and we could live together (they wouldn't have allowed it otherwise).
    I talked to my parents about this and although they are extremely traditional (like, religious ceremony and all...) they said they wanted us to have a ceremony back in America to celebrate with our family, granted we tell none of our relatives that we've already signed papers. I know it seems like I'm just going to have a ceremony for the attention, but the papers to us were for convenience, the ceremony feels like our true wedding in a way. I just saw another post talking about having a courthouse wedding and a ceremony is just selfish and I didn't entirely feel that way, so I wanted to see what other people thought as well. I hope that answers your question :)
    "I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request.... It means no." -Alistair, Dragon Age Origins



  • Ok, so to give some context as to why I posted this poll:

    My situation is one of those that is tricky for people to accept...my fiance/husband and I have signed marriage papers in Japan. No ceremony or courthouse or anything. Literally went to the city hall with all our papers and they gave us a marriage certificate. We had already lived together unmarried in the States, but when we both moved to Japan for work, our jobs couldn't guarantee that we would live close to each other or together at all unless we were married, hence why we lived apart (Yokohama for me, Okayama for him). It just was stressful for us so we got the papers signed, which allowed me to get a job in his town and we could live together (they wouldn't have allowed it otherwise).
    I talked to my parents about this and although they are extremely traditional (like, religious ceremony and all...) they said they wanted us to have a ceremony back in America to celebrate with our family, granted we tell none of our relatives that we've already signed papers. I know it seems like I'm just going to have a ceremony for the attention, but the papers to us were for convenience, the ceremony feels like our true wedding in a way. I just saw another post talking about having a courthouse wedding and a ceremony is just selfish and I didn't entirely feel that way, so I wanted to see what other people thought as well. I hope that answers your question :)


    Would you be telling your religious leader officiating your re-do ceremony you are already married and asking them to help you lie to your family? Or would you be lying to that person as well? 

    Congratulations. You are already married. As PPs have pointed out you are perfectly within reason to have a "Welcome Home" or "Celebration of Marriage" party - you can even have your religious officiant bless your marriage. But you must make it clear to those you are inviting that you are in fact, already married. 
    short+sassyInLoveInQueensPrettyGirlLostmollybarker11

  • megtownxx said:

    Just to contribute to the conversation for fun, my biggest peeve about these situations is the dishonesty aspect. Like actively trying to conceal from your family and guests in order to convey that you're not married, legally or however else you want to define it. If you want a party, have a frickin party. Call it a vow renewal, call it a welcome home, do what you want. Just don't lie to people. It's bad juju and tacky af IMO.


    Or actually have a vow renewal, there's nothing wrong with that. And since you didn't have vows on Japan this seems like a fine choice. 
    short+sassyPrettyGirlLost[Deleted User]ei34
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards