JoP ceremony prior to the wedding

Glassicari

I've been lurking here for quite a while and thus am aware of the attitude toward having a JoP ceremony and then planning for another wedding ceremony and reception (it's not kosher, etc.).  One of the posts below got me wondering if there's anything that may change the groups' thinking.  I have a slight particularity and am wondering, from a guests point of view, what opinions would be.  My particularity is that I will be having a same-sex ceremony.  Our marriage is not legally recognized in most states - thus, we can't get legally married in most states.  Our plan:  to have a JoP legal thing in Massachusetts on a Thursday (legal in MA only, not the state in which the wedding is planned), and a dear friend (not legal) performing our ceremony the following Friday with a reception after.  Given the legal status (and lack thereof) of our relationship, the ceremony in front of friends, by a friends, means more to us anyhow which is why we're considering that the wedding.

(It seems to me that everyone considers the legal ceremony to be the wedding ceremony.  However, if you can't get legally wedded in the state you're living in, does that change the general attitude toward this issue - from a guest perspective?)

I'm just curious if this changes the overall attitude toward the issue of 'two ceremonies'.  Thanks!

opalsky007

I think this is one of the few situations where it's just fine to separate the legal and celebratory parts of the wedding. I'm saddened that you can't get married in your own state and I really hope that changes soon.

laurenclaire1386

You can't invite your guests to the ceremony in MA?

aMrsin09

I agree, this is the only reason I can think of that it's OK to have the two weddings.

cupcakesfrosting

LC has a point. You could do a sort of Destination Wedding to Massachusets.. If no one could make it, then I could see celebrating it in your home state..

And I agree with Opal.. My future M'sIL made it through the cracks in 2008 and were able to be married in CA. I hope it changes for good, for everyone very soon..

gailpete

In this situation, I wouldn't have a problem with a JOP ceremony followed a week later by a "vow renewal" and reception.  The reason I say this is, as you stated, you can't be legally married in your home town.

Celles

I doesn't have a problem separating the legal and ceremonial aspect of a wedding in general (I know I'm with the minority in this); in this situation, it's especially understandable.

I hope the rest of the country catches up to Massachusetts soon.

Glassicari

Wow, thanks for the quick responses!  I appreciate the support, and am really hoping things change soon as well.

LaurenClaire - it's a long story, but the short of it is,  no, we can't have guests in MA.  This has been on the table.

lilianne22

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_jop-ceremony-prior-wedding?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:d2271c29-8dc3-4deb-ae2b-13cbedd006ffPost:d80f4f56-2c72-4ac9-a371-249873b77af9">Re: JoP ceremony prior to the wedding</a>:
[QUOTE]I think this is one of the few situations where it's just fine to separate the legal and celebratory parts of the wedding. I'm saddened that you can't get married in your own state and I really hope that changes soon.
Posted by opalsky007[/QUOTE]

This.

cat1121

I think it's fine in this case. I think there are other exceptions to the "hetero norm" as well.

The focus of your FL event should be the support of the community and your vows to each other, not the legality of it all. There are two parts...the legal part...and ceremony part, which can be deeply mystical and spiritual and personal. They can be entirely seperate.

On another tangent...this is exactly why I think that the state should not be involved in marriage. All state sanctioned unions should be civil ceremonies open to anyone, and leave the marriage part to celebrants.

TTiger03

Your situation is much different than the one mentioned earlier.  I agree with everyone above that you are prefectly within what is acceptable here.  The main difference to me is that you are doing this because you legally have no other option.  The other thread was about desire (bigger party), not necessity (legality).  I gather you would do your hometown ceremony shortly after.  I assume you are also not trying to keep your first ceremony secret.  As long as I'm right with both of those assumptions, I don't think you have anything in common with the other thread. 
I wish you and your love all the best. 

laurenclaire1386

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_jop-ceremony-prior-wedding?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:d2271c29-8dc3-4deb-ae2b-13cbedd006ffPost:13f87752-e2ba-4fc2-bdf9-6690ea2d9efa">Re: JoP ceremony prior to the wedding</a>:
[QUOTE]Wow, thanks for the quick responses!  I appreciate the support, and am really hoping things change soon as well. LaurenClaire - it's a long story, but the short of it is,  no, we can't have guests in MA.  This has been on the table.
Posted by Glassicari[/QUOTE]
Well, it's still not my favorite concept, but the difference in your situation is that you don't have the same rights in every state, which is ridiculous. I'm just really rigid on this issue. There's just something in me that doesn't find the second celebration as authentic as the ceremony that gets you legally wed. And as I said in the other thread, you're totally fine etiquette wise, it's just a personal opinion of mine.

ThePinkSuperhero

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_jop-ceremony-prior-wedding?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:d2271c29-8dc3-4deb-ae2b-13cbedd006ffPost:8662b3a9-0dc9-42db-b83f-cafe8f32c210">Re: JoP ceremony prior to the wedding</a>:
[QUOTE]I doesn't have a problem separating the legal and ceremonial aspect of a wedding in general (I know I'm with the minority in this); in this situation, it's especially understandable. I hope the rest of the country catches up to Massachusetts soon.
Posted by Celles[/QUOTE]



Me too!

mysticl

Friends of mine did that.  They had a relgious ceremony in their home state with their friends and family and then got on a plane to CA during the window when it was legal and had civil service there.

I really don't have a problem in general with 2 ceremonies.  I just don't think people should lie to their families about it. 

In some countries you have to have 2 if you want a religious blessing for your marriage because the religious ceremony is not legal.   

Calypso1977

i agree, that this is on par with various countries that require a civil ceremony for legal recognition, versus the religious ceremony sufficing.

heyimbren

Normally, I really hate the idea of a second ceremony because it's like putting on a show, or a play.

In YOUR case however, I have no problem with it since you've looked at a DW already and it won't work, and you really don't have another option. I think you're perfectly fine etiquette-wise in doing this.

Also, good job on lurking before posting!

Mrs.B6302007

Yep, since you can't get married in your own state, a vow renewal/2nd ceremony would not bother me one bit as a guest.

[Deleted User]

I don't even think you need to call it a vow renewal. I think this would be an exception to actually having two ceremonies. The one in MA would strictly be legal. The one with your families, could be a spiritual ceremony and thus even mean more to you both as a couple than the legal ceremony. You can even have different vows for the second one that have a greater meaning than the generic legal wordings of a civil ceremony. Although, maybe as an alternative, what you can do is the private ceremony and celebration with family first and then go to MA to make it legal. This may make guests feel more at ease that they are not B list guests that did not make it to the actual legal ceremony.

TurtlesAllTheWayDown

This is a completely understandable situation. I HATE JOPs/big weddings and I even side-eye vow renewals where the bride and groom are open and honest about already being married. But this is one of those issues that you can't really work around, especially since you want the wedding in your home town/where you live/with local people (not everyone wants a DW).

And even though you can't legally marry in NY, I believe they do recognize it, at least.

Glassicari

Wow, I really do appreciate everyone's responses and am glad this situation wouldn't get the "side eye" from a guest.  I don't think it would from any of our guests - they understand our situation and are sympathetic to the legal barriers.  I also (obviously) agree with the sentiment that the legal aspect of marriage should be separated from the religious/ceremonial aspect.  It would just make everyone happier, I would think.  Anyway, thanks for the honest opinions.

One note to LaurenClaire - I respect your opinion, but I just can't help but respond to the notion of authenticity you mentioned.  From our (my fiancee and myself) perspective, legality lacks authenticity for us.  It's not what will make our marriage real or authentic - legally or personally - for us.  Again, it's just my opinion.

Thank you all!

tenofcups4me

Just one more person coming in to say I'd have absolutely no issue with what you're talking about.

Here's hoping someday you won't have to go through all these contortions to declare your commitment to the person you love, but given the reality of today's situation, I think what you're doing is fine.

SweetLaura286

In general as a guest I would feel cheated, or like it's fake... and silly.... HOWEVER, I really wouldn't have an issue with it, at all, in your situation. I'm sure most of your guests would feel the same.