I still don't get it.

tlv204

Good point nqb and meaghan, I'm sure my opinion would change a lot if it was someone I cared about.

noelle24

I used to be absolutely incredulous about do-overs.  And I'm still not a fan. But then I realized that visa situations get really complicated very quickly, and it can be very expensive.  So now I certainly understand the temptation, even though we're still only going to do one ceremony and reception.If we use a lawyer through the whole process, we could easily spend 7-10k just for the legal hoops.  That doesn't leave a ton of money for a wedding on top of things.  Also, the sooner we got married, the easier it will be for FI to get a job after he graduates.  It would be a lot easier if we got married now, did all the legal stuff, and then in 2 years, had a renewal and celebration with family and friends when we have time to save more money.  Yes, in the end, all that matters is that I'm married to FI.  But I really want a chance to celebrate with people.  Not everyone lives in a place where they can pull a party together for very cheap, so it's not always possible get married right away and also have a celebration (however small).So I agree with agk that not all do-overs are gift-grabby, and some people just want the chance to celebrate.  The gift-grabby ones... yeah, THOSE I have a big problem with.   

aerinpegadrak

Having thought about it, the only reason I could see having a second ceremony is if it's vastly different for cultural or religious reasons, and if you're doing them at different times and/or in different places, you hold separate parties for each.  So say one's a fairly standard American-style wedding and the other's Indian.  Or, as I recall from Offbeat Bride, one is a church wedding with the groom's traditional Southern family and the other is a pagan handfasting with the bride's clan of hippies.  Sometimes you really just can't combine those into one ceremony.

tidetravel

Like PPs said, for me, there is a difference between the "legal" and "spiritual" aspects of a wedding.  If someone goes to a courthouse and signs a piece of paper they are "married" according to the law.  It's completely different pledging your commitment to each other in front of friends/family/God.  The two arguments I hear most against these are 1)  that the "do overs" are gift grabs.  I have never known any couple that gets back anywhere close to what they spent in gifts  (the exception being when parents paying for the wedding)2)  that the ceremony is a "reenactment" of the vows they took when they signed the papers.  Just because I told my husband that I loved him yesterday doesn't mean that I don't mean it as much when I say it tomorrow  

AlexiaANDRobert

Tide - well said.

mocha beans

Tide always explains this well.

springflower413

To go along with what Tide said, if you are Catholic you are not considered married unless you have it in the Church anyway, and I can understand wanting people to see your "actual" marriage. I'm not Catholic but spiritual, and most protestant churches recognize a JOP marriage, but if it were me personally and I would have to do this, I would not feel married until I had the "God" component, because I think of marriage as a Godly covenent and think the legal part is just for the State.