Legally married, now having a "real" wedding? Stop here first! (AKA, the PPD FAQ thread)

JCbride2015

 

Jen4948 said:

Sabinus15 said:

My cousin had a small ceremony with just immediate family and one or two close friends present due to pressing circumstances. I would have been disappointed if she HAD NOT had a later celebration of their marriage, because then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to celebrate with them. As far as I know, everyone else there had the same opinion. Calling them "PPD's" and saying that they are selfish and offensive is narrow-minded in my opinion, and totally unnecessary. I agree with the PP who said "stop being the wedding police and just let people celebrate however the heck they want."

Sorry, but pressing circumstances or not, the first wedding is just that, your wedding-regardless of how small it is, whether or not it is religious, whether or not your family and/or friends are there, or whether or not there is a "celebration."  You are not entitled to expect to "celebrate" anyone else's marriage, regardless of how disappointed you feel if they don't have a "celebration."

And sorry, but no one is entitled to "celebrate however the heck they want" and not be subject to etiquette rules.  You want to break those rules, don't come here and complain that you want to throw it all away just because it's what you want.  The whole point of etiquette is "it's not just about you."   If you want to involve a single other person in your wedding in any capacity, your "wedding," whatever that is, is not "your day" or just about "what you want" any more.

So lose the "wedding police" crap, grow up, and accept that.

But let me add that a later party or celebration of marriage, without a fake ceremony and without the "wedding" trappings, would be just fine.  It's still possible to celebrate later.  The problem is the fake ceremony do-over, cake cutting, etc.

delujm0

Sabinus15 said:

My cousin had a small ceremony with just immediate family and one or two close friends present due to pressing circumstances. I would have been disappointed if she HAD NOT had a later celebration of their marriage, because then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to celebrate with them. As far as I know, everyone else there had the same opinion. Calling them "PPD's" and saying that they are selfish and offensive is narrow-minded in my opinion, and totally unnecessary. I agree with the PP who said "stop being the wedding police and just let people celebrate however the heck they want."

Getting married legally and then later having a party for their friends is completely fine.  What is NOT fine is getting married legally, and then having a second ceremony that is actually meaningless because the wedding has already happened.  You can have a reception-type party on a later date than your legal ceremony and be fine.  You just can't have a second pretend ceremony.

 

The brides on this board have differing opinions about what type of things are permittable at the "after-party" if you will - having a second fake ceremony is in no way acceptable.  Some people take issue with any wedding-type activities (first dance, cake cutting, big white dress, etc).  I'm on the side that thinks that as long as there is ONLY ONE ceremony and ONLY ONE reception, you can do whatever you want at each of them.  However, all those brides that have a destination wedding with a reception and then try to have a second reception afterwards for people at home (complete with poofy dress, cake cutting, first dance, etc) for example - that's where I draw the line personally. 

 

Also, it is NEVER ok to get married legally "on the sly" and then have a second ceremony - that is misleading your guests into believing that they are witnessing your actual marriage, when they are not dong that at all.  No one thinks that is E-approved.

Sabinus15

Jen4948 said:

Sabinus15 said:

My cousin had a small ceremony with just immediate family and one or two close friends present due to pressing circumstances. I would have been disappointed if she HAD NOT had a later celebration of their marriage, because then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to celebrate with them. As far as I know, everyone else there had the same opinion. Calling them "PPD's" and saying that they are selfish and offensive is narrow-minded in my opinion, and totally unnecessary. I agree with the PP who said "stop being the wedding police and just let people celebrate however the heck they want."

Sorry, but pressing circumstances or not, the first wedding is just that, your wedding-regardless of how small it is, whether or not it is religious, whether or not your family and/or friends are there, or whether or not there is a "celebration."  You are not entitled to expect to "celebrate" anyone else's marriage, regardless of how disappointed you feel if they don't have a "celebration."

And sorry, but no one is entitled to "celebrate however the heck they want" and not be subject to etiquette rules.  You want to break those rules, don't come here and complain that you want to throw it all away just because it's what you want.  The whole point of etiquette is "it's not just about you."   If you want to involve a single other person in your wedding in any capacity, your "wedding," whatever that is, is not "your day" or just about "what you want" any more.

So lose the "wedding police" crap, grow up, and accept that.

Yes, I'm glad we agree on that. What I'm trying to say is I don't think that a second ceremony and reception are rude. I feel that my cousin WAS considerate of her guests by having the later celebration. Everyone there (to my knowledge) was glad that they had the opportunity given by the B & G to celebrate their marriage, it at least gave some closure to the situation, since everyone heard about the wedding after the fact. It was common knowledge that they were already married, and our family wanted to show our support. Saying that "everyone would be offended by a PPD" is assuming that everyone goes to a wedding because they want to be there at the exact moment of their marriage. If people didn't like that they weren't going to a "real wedding" then they could suck it and just not go. The real point of a guest's attendance is to show their support for the B & G, and I think a later celebration, with a reenactment of the ceremony or no, allows guests to do that. If they are offended by a PPD then they aren't being forced to go for pete's sake. 

I am in no way suggesting that you should mislead your guests that you are married. Anyone would be offended to find out that they were lied to. I'm just saying that if you're upfront about the situation, I don't think it's rude at all, in fact the opposite. If you were really being selfish about your wedding day, you're right, you wouldn't invite anyone. So giving your guests a chance to show their support of your marriage IS being a proper host. 

lavenderfields13

I've been to 2 "weddings" where the bride and groom were already married and most people didn't know. Really irks me.

lovelybride614

thank you. i apologize since I didn't go through all of the pages. I appreciate the non-judgment. I have been super paranoid

lovelybride614

that's a great way to sum it up

crunchymamaof2

Sabinus15 said:

Jen4948 said:

Sabinus15 said:

My cousin had a small ceremony with just immediate family and one or two close friends present due to pressing circumstances. I would have been disappointed if she HAD NOT had a later celebration of their marriage, because then I wouldn't have had the opportunity to celebrate with them. As far as I know, everyone else there had the same opinion. Calling them "PPD's" and saying that they are selfish and offensive is narrow-minded in my opinion, and totally unnecessary. I agree with the PP who said "stop being the wedding police and just let people celebrate however the heck they want."

Sorry, but pressing circumstances or not, the first wedding is just that, your wedding-regardless of how small it is, whether or not it is religious, whether or not your family and/or friends are there, or whether or not there is a "celebration."  You are not entitled to expect to "celebrate" anyone else's marriage, regardless of how disappointed you feel if they don't have a "celebration."

And sorry, but no one is entitled to "celebrate however the heck they want" and not be subject to etiquette rules.  You want to break those rules, don't come here and complain that you want to throw it all away just because it's what you want.  The whole point of etiquette is "it's not just about you."   If you want to involve a single other person in your wedding in any capacity, your "wedding," whatever that is, is not "your day" or just about "what you want" any more.

So lose the "wedding police" crap, grow up, and accept that.

Yes, I'm glad we agree on that. What I'm trying to say is I don't think that a second ceremony and reception are rude. I feel that my cousin WAS considerate of her guests by having the later celebration. Everyone there (to my knowledge) was glad that they had the opportunity given by the B & G to celebrate their marriage, it at least gave some closure to the situation, since everyone heard about the wedding after the fact. It was common knowledge that they were already married, and our family wanted to show our support. Saying that "everyone would be offended by a PPD" is assuming that everyone goes to a wedding because they want to be there at the exact moment of their marriage. If people didn't like that they weren't going to a "real wedding" then they could suck it and just not go. The real point of a guest's attendance is to show their support for the B & G, and I think a later celebration, with a reenactment of the ceremony or no, allows guests to do that. If they are offended by a PPD then they aren't being forced to go for pete's sake. 

I am in no way suggesting that you should mislead your guests that you are married. Anyone would be offended to find out that they were lied to. I'm just saying that if you're upfront about the situation, I don't think it's rude at all, in fact the opposite. If you were really being selfish about your wedding day, you're right, you wouldn't invite anyone. So giving your guests a chance to show their support of your marriage IS being a proper host. 

Actually, most people go to a wedding to see two people get married. I don't want to see a fake re-do. And frankly, the person you speak about has some pretty selfish family members. Why does witnessing a fake (or real) ceremony have to be the only way to support a bride and groom (and in the fake ceremony, they'd be "supporting" a husband and wife)?So they didn't get to witness the wedding- why can't they support them in their marriage and just be happy for them? If they want to celebrate they could have hosted a party, no fake ceremony needed. Everyone loves a party. Few like fake re-do weddings. And yes, I can promise you at least one person who witness the re-do was offended but didn't say anything because they care about the husband and wife. Doesn't make their hurt feelings any less valid.

 

arrippa

Sabinus15 said:

Yes, I'm glad we agree on that. What I'm trying to say is I don't think that a second ceremony and reception are rude. I feel that my cousin WAS considerate of her guests by having the later celebration. Everyone there (to my knowledge) was glad that they had the opportunity given by the B & G to celebrate their marriage, it at least gave some closure to the situation, since everyone heard about the wedding after the fact. It was common knowledge that they were already married, and our family wanted to show our support. Saying that "everyone would be offended by a PPD" is assuming that everyone goes to a wedding because they want to be there at the exact moment of their marriage. If people didn't like that they weren't going to a "real wedding" then they could suck it and just not go. The real point of a guest's attendance is to show their support for the B & G, and I think a later celebration, with a reenactment of the ceremony or no, allows guests to do that. If they are offended by a PPD then they aren't being forced to go for pete's sake. 

I am in no way suggesting that you should mislead your guests that you are married. Anyone would be offended to find out that they were lied to. I'm just saying that if you're upfront about the situation, I don't think it's rude at all, in fact the opposite. If you were really being selfish about your wedding day, you're right, you wouldn't invite anyone. So giving your guests a chance to show their support of your marriage IS being a proper host. 

Being considerate to your guests means open bar, seats for everyone and you know being a good host.  That does NOT include play acting a ceremony which has no legal consequence. In fact, I would call that NOT being a gracious host but a lying and pretending one.

Sabinus15

@moemacWed03594
Lying to your guests is never okay. My cousin did no such thing. It was common knowledge that they were married and it was clearly worded in the invitations that we wouldn't be attending a wedding, but a celebration of their marriage. I agree that it would be not be good etiquette to imply that you are not married when you are, and I would never encourage anyone to do this. At the same time, I myself wouldn't be offended if I found out I was at a wedding where the couple was already married because it isn't any of my business. But that's just me. 

@acove2006
I'm not seeing how my family was selfish. No one was demanding or even expecting a second celebration. They would have still been supportive of the couple whether they did or didn't have a second celebration. I think it was a pleasant surprise, however, when we got the invitation to the wedding celebration. To me, as a guest, it implied that the bride and groom were saying, "we wish we could have had the opportunity to have you with us at our wedding because we care about you, and because we still want to celebrate with our families, here is an invitation to a celebration at which we will show our love for each other in a ceremony." which I think is a very nice thought and not rude at all. 

You said, "If they want to celebrate they could have hosted a party, no fake ceremony needed." Yes, but why isn't the opposite true too? Why can't they have a ceremony with a vow renewal along with it? Are vow renewals that offensive? Is a ceremony offensive because it's a waste of time/boring? Why don't we just do without all ceremonies if that's the case, because guests think they are a waste of time/boring. 

chibiyui

If everyone knew your cousin was married, and she had a vow renweal, then it wasn't really a PPD.

crunchymamaof2

Sabinus15 said:

@acove2006
I'm not seeing how my family was selfish. No one was demanding or even expecting a second celebration. They would have still been supportive of the couple whether they did or didn't have a second celebration. I think it was a pleasant surprise, however, when we got the invitation to the wedding celebration. To me, as a guest, it implied that the bride and groom were saying, "we wish we could have had the opportunity to have you with us at our wedding because we care about you, and because we still want to celebrate with our families, here is an invitation to a celebration at which we will show our love for each other in a ceremony." which I think is a very nice thought and not rude at all. 

You said, "If they want to celebrate they could have hosted a party, no fake ceremony needed." Yes, but why isn't the opposite true too? Why can't they have a ceremony with a vow renewal along with it? Are vow renewals that offensive? Is a ceremony offensive because it's a waste of time/boring? Why don't we just do without all ceremonies if that's the case, because guests think they are a waste of time/boring. 

First, you did not receive an invitation from the bride and groom. You received an invite from a husband and wife.

TRUE vow renewals are just fine. But a vow renewal isn't simply a recreation of a wedding, piece for piece. If it looks like a duck, but barks like a dog, it's not a duck. If a "vow renewal" looks like a traditional wedding, it's not a vow renewal. It's a fake wedding. Parties are just fine because parties can be thrown to celebrate anything. A wedding is when two people legally and sometimes religiously become married. You can't recreate that moment. The ceremony is what makes a marriage happen. By trying to pretend you're getting married again, when you already are in fact married, is crappy. The ceremony is the sacred & important part. If there weren't enough people around to witness you exchange vows then you should have planned the wedding you wanted or just love the wedding you had. Don't put on a fake one for show.

It makes marriage look like some silly little thing that isn't a big deal. Which is very wrong.

 

*I will admit I rambled a lot here. My 1 year old is trying to eat my face so I apologize in advance.

Maggie0829

Sabinus15 said:

@moemacWed03594
Lying to your guests is never okay. My cousin did no such thing. It was common knowledge that they were married and it was clearly worded in the invitations that we wouldn't be attending a wedding, but a celebration of their marriage. I agree that it would be not be good etiquette to imply that you are not married when you are, and I would never encourage anyone to do this. At the same time, I myself wouldn't be offended if I found out I was at a wedding where the couple was already married because it isn't any of my business. But that's just me. 

@acove2006
I'm not seeing how my family was selfish. No one was demanding or even expecting a second celebration. They would have still been supportive of the couple whether they did or didn't have a second celebration. I think it was a pleasant surprise, however, when we got the invitation to the wedding celebration. To me, as a guest, it implied that the bride and groom were saying, "we wish we could have had the opportunity to have you with us at our wedding because we care about you, and because we still want to celebrate with our families, here is an invitation to a celebration at which we will show our love for each other in a ceremony." which I think is a very nice thought and not rude at all. 

You said, "If they want to celebrate they could have hosted a party, no fake ceremony needed." Yes, but why isn't the opposite true too? Why can't they have a ceremony with a vow renewal along with it? Are vow renewals that offensive? Is a ceremony offensive because it's a waste of time/boring? Why don't we just do without all ceremonies if that's the case, because guests think they are a waste of time/boring. 

To the second part of your post.  If I received an invite to a re-do wedding I would be thinking "if they could plan a big re-do ceremony and party then why the hell couldn't I have been invited to the real thing?"  It really just doesn't make sense to me.  If you want to celebrate with all your friends and family then why not plan and throw the big shindig the first time around?

PrettyGirlLost

Sabinus15 said:

@moemacWed03594
Lying to your guests is never okay. My cousin did no such thing. It was common knowledge that they were married and it was clearly worded in the invitations that we wouldn't be attending a wedding, but a celebration of their marriage. I agree that it would be not be good etiquette to imply that you are not married when you are, and I would never encourage anyone to do this. At the same time, I myself wouldn't be offended if I found out I was at a wedding where the couple was already married That means you aren't present at a wedding but are present at a PPD or a reenactment or a play, etc.  because it isn't any of my business. But that's just me. 

@acove2006
I'm not seeing how my family was selfish. No one was demanding or even expecting a second celebration. They would have still been supportive of the couple whether they did or didn't have a second celebration. I think it was a pleasant surprise, however, when we got the invitation to the wedding celebration. To me, as a guest, it implied that the bride and groom Wife and Husband were saying, "we wish we could have had the opportunity to have you with us at our wedding because we care about you, and because we still want to celebrate with our families, here is an invitation to a celebration at which we will show our love for each other in a ceremony." which I think is a very nice thought and not rude at all.  If they wanted to celebrate with their families then why didn't they do that on the day of their actual wedding?  If having family there was so important to them then why didn't they plan and budget accordingly to have a single ceremony and reception with everyone?

You said, "If they want to celebrate they could have hosted a party, no fake ceremony needed." Yes, but why isn't the opposite true too? Why can't they have a ceremony with a vow renewal along with it?  They can but people judge it because it is ridiculous and comes off as very AWish.  Again, if they really wanted to have everyone present for their wedding ceremony, then they should have invited them when they originally got married.  "Wedding ceremonies" at vow renewals which are not landmark anniversaries are just ridiculous to me.  Why do I want to sit through what amounts to a wedding reenactment or play?  It holds no meaning.  Are vow renewals that offensive? No a true vow renewal held at a landmark anniversary- like 25 years of marriage, 50 years of marriage- is meant to recognize a significant accomplishment, and I think they are really sweet.  Having a "vow renewal" a year after you have been married at the JOP is ridiculous and offensive to me because what it says to me is "Hey everyone, look at me!  I had a shotgun JOP wedding because I wanted some sort of government benefit immediately and didn't  have the money saved to host the wedding reception I really wanted.  So now I'm having a wedding redo so I can have the big floofy dress and party that I really wanted."  It's offensive because it shows selfishness and impulsiveness on the part of the couple, and it's a smack in the face to everyone who chooses to have a single JOP ceremony as their wedding. . . it's like saying to those people that their wedding wasn't "real" because they chose not to have a PPD. 

It is also offensive because it misses the mark of what a wedding is and why it is important- here's a hint, your wedding ceremony is the important part and that occurs when you legally and/or in the eyes of your chosen deity become husband and wife.  The big dress and all the decor and the reception is not the important part- that's just a damn party.

Is a ceremony offensive because it's a waste of time/boring?  See above.  It's offensive because it is fake among other things.  Why don't we just do without all ceremonies if that's the case, because guests think they are a waste of time/boring. Again, see above.  Because the actual wedding ceremony IS the important part of the wedding day- again, the reception is just a damn party and it is not even for the bride and groom.  Fake or re do ceremonies at PPDs are a waste of time/boring and we should do away with this stupid PPD trend.

Not directed to the OP I quoted, but you can only get married once to a person without 1st divorcing them.  Rather than trying to justify why your PPD is valid, polite, not fake, etc why not save yourselves the trouble and aggravation and just have a single damn wedding with everyone you want present at a single point in time?

 If that means you have to save up for a year or 3 or 5, then do it- that's what big girls do.  Not everything in life is about instant gratification.

crunchymamaof2

@prettygirllost - you just said everything I was trying to say, but yours made much more sense! so thank you :-)

PrettyGirlLost

acove2006 said:

@prettygirllost - you just said everything I was trying to say, but yours made much more sense! so thank you :-)

I am here to serve!  I will get out of your head now so that you can make sense again, lol!

Sabinus15

PrettyGirlLost said:

Sabinus15 said:

@moemacWed03594
Lying to your guests is never okay. My cousin did no such thing. It was common knowledge that they were married and it was clearly worded in the invitations that we wouldn't be attending a wedding, but a celebration of their marriage. I agree that it would be not be good etiquette to imply that you are not married when you are, and I would never encourage anyone to do this. At the same time, I myself wouldn't be offended if I found out I was at a wedding where the couple was already married That means you aren't present at a wedding but are present at a PPD or a reenactment or a play, etc.  because it isn't any of my business. But that's just me. 

@acove2006
I'm not seeing how my family was selfish. No one was demanding or even expecting a second celebration. They would have still been supportive of the couple whether they did or didn't have a second celebration. I think it was a pleasant surprise, however, when we got the invitation to the wedding celebration. To me, as a guest, it implied that the bride and groom Wife and Husband were saying, "we wish we could have had the opportunity to have you with us at our wedding because we care about you, and because we still want to celebrate with our families, here is an invitation to a celebration at which we will show our love for each other in a ceremony." which I think is a very nice thought and not rude at all.  If they wanted to celebrate with their families then why didn't they do that on the day of their actual wedding?  If having family there was so important to them then why didn't they plan and budget accordingly to have a single ceremony and reception with everyone?

You said, "If they want to celebrate they could have hosted a party, no fake ceremony needed." Yes, but why isn't the opposite true too? Why can't they have a ceremony with a vow renewal along with it?  They can but people judge it because it is ridiculous and comes off as very AWish.  Again, if they really wanted to have everyone present for their wedding ceremony, then they should have invited them when they originally got married.  "Wedding ceremonies" at vow renewals which are not landmark anniversaries are just ridiculous to me.  Why do I want to sit through what amounts to a wedding reenactment or play?  It holds no meaning.  Are vow renewals that offensive? No a true vow renewal held at a landmark anniversary- like 25 years of marriage, 50 years of marriage- is meant to recognize a significant accomplishment, and I think they are really sweet.  Having a "vow renewal" a year after you have been married at the JOP is ridiculous and offensive to me because what it says to me is "Hey everyone, look at me!  I had a shotgun JOP wedding because I wanted some sort of government benefit immediately and didn't  have the money saved to host the wedding reception I really wanted.  So now I'm having a wedding redo so I can have the big floofy dress and party that I really wanted."  It's offensive because it shows selfishness and impulsiveness on the part of the couple, and it's a smack in the face to everyone who chooses to have a single JOP ceremony as their wedding. . . it's like saying to those people that their wedding wasn't "real" because they chose not to have a PPD. 

It is also offensive because it misses the mark of what a wedding is and why it is important- here's a hint, your wedding ceremony is the important part and that occurs when you legally and/or in the eyes of your chosen deity become husband and wife.  The big dress and all the decor and the reception is not the important part- that's just a damn party.

Is a ceremony offensive because it's a waste of time/boring?  See above.  It's offensive because it is fake among other things.  Why don't we just do without all ceremonies if that's the case, because guests think they are a waste of time/boring. Again, see above.  Because the actual wedding ceremony IS the important part of the wedding day- again, the reception is just a damn party and it is not even for the bride and groom.  Fake or re do ceremonies at PPDs are a waste of time/boring and we should do away with this stupid PPD trend.

Not directed to the OP I quoted, but you can only get married once to a person without 1st divorcing them.  Rather than trying to justify why your PPD is valid, polite, not fake, etc why not save yourselves the trouble and aggravation and just have a single damn wedding with everyone you want present at a single point in time?

 If that means you have to save up for a year or 3 or 5, then do it- that's what big girls do.  Not everything in life is about instant gratification.

I am not offended by weddings, wedding celebrations, or PPD's. 

I think it is very rude and assuming to say that everyone who has a PPD "didn't plan well enough" and that they were selfish and impulsive because life didn't go the way they planned. 

I think the phrase "there are no exceptions, no one has a good reason to have a PPD" is just plain false. 

It seems we must agree to disagree. Thank you for respecting my opinion. 

PrettyGirlLost

Sabinus15 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Sabinus15 said:

@moemacWed03594
Lying to your guests is never okay. My cousin did no such thing. It was common knowledge that they were married and it was clearly worded in the invitations that we wouldn't be attending a wedding, but a celebration of their marriage. I agree that it would be not be good etiquette to imply that you are not married when you are, and I would never encourage anyone to do this. At the same time, I myself wouldn't be offended if I found out I was at a wedding where the couple was already married That means you aren't present at a wedding but are present at a PPD or a reenactment or a play, etc.  because it isn't any of my business. But that's just me. 

@acove2006
I'm not seeing how my family was selfish. No one was demanding or even expecting a second celebration. They would have still been supportive of the couple whether they did or didn't have a second celebration. I think it was a pleasant surprise, however, when we got the invitation to the wedding celebration. To me, as a guest, it implied that the bride and groom Wife and Husband were saying, "we wish we could have had the opportunity to have you with us at our wedding because we care about you, and because we still want to celebrate with our families, here is an invitation to a celebration at which we will show our love for each other in a ceremony." which I think is a very nice thought and not rude at all.  If they wanted to celebrate with their families then why didn't they do that on the day of their actual wedding?  If having family there was so important to them then why didn't they plan and budget accordingly to have a single ceremony and reception with everyone?

You said, "If they want to celebrate they could have hosted a party, no fake ceremony needed." Yes, but why isn't the opposite true too? Why can't they have a ceremony with a vow renewal along with it?  They can but people judge it because it is ridiculous and comes off as very AWish.  Again, if they really wanted to have everyone present for their wedding ceremony, then they should have invited them when they originally got married.  "Wedding ceremonies" at vow renewals which are not landmark anniversaries are just ridiculous to me.  Why do I want to sit through what amounts to a wedding reenactment or play?  It holds no meaning.  Are vow renewals that offensive? No a true vow renewal held at a landmark anniversary- like 25 years of marriage, 50 years of marriage- is meant to recognize a significant accomplishment, and I think they are really sweet.  Having a "vow renewal" a year after you have been married at the JOP is ridiculous and offensive to me because what it says to me is "Hey everyone, look at me!  I had a shotgun JOP wedding because I wanted some sort of government benefit immediately and didn't  have the money saved to host the wedding reception I really wanted.  So now I'm having a wedding redo so I can have the big floofy dress and party that I really wanted."  It's offensive because it shows selfishness and impulsiveness on the part of the couple, and it's a smack in the face to everyone who chooses to have a single JOP ceremony as their wedding. . . it's like saying to those people that their wedding wasn't "real" because they chose not to have a PPD. 

It is also offensive because it misses the mark of what a wedding is and why it is important- here's a hint, your wedding ceremony is the important part and that occurs when you legally and/or in the eyes of your chosen deity become husband and wife.  The big dress and all the decor and the reception is not the important part- that's just a damn party.

Is a ceremony offensive because it's a waste of time/boring?  See above.  It's offensive because it is fake among other things.  Why don't we just do without all ceremonies if that's the case, because guests think they are a waste of time/boring. Again, see above.  Because the actual wedding ceremony IS the important part of the wedding day- again, the reception is just a damn party and it is not even for the bride and groom.  Fake or re do ceremonies at PPDs are a waste of time/boring and we should do away with this stupid PPD trend.

Not directed to the OP I quoted, but you can only get married once to a person without 1st divorcing them.  Rather than trying to justify why your PPD is valid, polite, not fake, etc why not save yourselves the trouble and aggravation and just have a single damn wedding with everyone you want present at a single point in time?

 If that means you have to save up for a year or 3 or 5, then do it- that's what big girls do.  Not everything in life is about instant gratification.

I am not offended by weddings, wedding celebrations, or PPD's. 

I think it is very rude and assuming to say that everyone who has a PPD "didn't plan well enough" and that they were selfish and impulsive because life didn't go the way they planned. 

I think the phrase "there are no exceptions, no one has a good reason to have a PPD" is just plain false. 

It seems we must agree to disagree. Thank you for respecting my opinion. 

The majority (98%) of the posts I read on TK justifying and explaining why a couple had a PPD were because they wanted to cash in on some sort of government benefit right that second, rather than waiting to have the wedding they really wanted and then cash in on those benefits like the majority of the other couples do.

That is the definition of impulsive and selfish, and the basis for my opinion.

sissixin

Why do ppl make such a big deal out of it? A wedding is a celebration of the union of a couple, who cares when they legally got married. I believe in most of Asia and Europe, ppl get the license prior to the weddomg day, it's no big deal. I've went to a few weddings where the couples got married in the courthouse before the wedding date, and have another ceremony in front of friends and family. It can be they want to marry on a certain day that's not during weekend. I will still bring the gift and $$ to such an event. 

Sabinus15

sissixin said:

Why do ppl make such a big deal out of it? A wedding is a celebration of the union of a couple, who cares when they legally got married. I believe in most of Asia and Europe, ppl get the license prior to the weddomg day, it's no big deal. I've went to a few weddings where the couples got married in the courthouse before the wedding date, and have another ceremony in front of friends and family. It can be they want to marry on a certain day that's not during weekend. I will still bring the gift and $$ to such an event. 

THANK YOU. 

Maggie0829

I figured this was appropriate for this thread as well.

delujm0

sissixin said:

Why do ppl make such a big deal out of it? A wedding is a celebration of the union of a couple, who cares when they legally got married. I believe in most of Asia and Europe, ppl get the license prior to the weddomg day, it's no big deal. I've went to a few weddings where the couples got married in the courthouse before the wedding date, and have another ceremony in front of friends and family. It can be they want to marry on a certain day that's not during weekend. I will still bring the gift and $$ to such an event. 

FYI, in the US you also get you license before the wedding day.  However, simply picking up your license doesn't make you married.  The ceremony makes you married.  When a qualified officiant performs the ceremony, and then signs the license, you are married.  Simply aving a license in your possession doesn't make you married.

 

It's nice that it doesn't bother you, but it does bother a lot of people.  I don't want to watch a fake ceremony.  what's the point?  if you want to get married on a Wednesday but want your reception the following Saturday, fine.  But don't have a fake ceremony on Saturday because of a choice that you made that caused attending your ceremony to be inconvenient to your guests. 

 

Some people on this board wouldn't even approve of the suggestion i made above.  My stance is that i will respect ONE ceremony and ONE reception for every bride and groom, regardless of when they are.  The minute I think i'm going to be subject to a second one of either of those things, I'm out.  If i want to see a play, i'll buy theatre tickets.

PrettyGirlLost

sissixin said:

Why do ppl make such a big deal out of it? A wedding is a celebration of the union of a couple, who cares when they legally got married. I believe in most of Asia and Europe, ppl get the license prior to the wedding day, it's no big deal. Everyone gets their license prior to their wedding day!  you have to provide documentation and file for that shit in a government office. . . which takes time.  That is not the issue, and I think you are confused.  I've went to a few weddings where the couples got married in the courthouse before the wedding date, and have another ceremony in front of friends and family. Then you didn't go to a freaking wedding, did you?  Were you present at the courthouse when the couple actually got married?  No?  This isn't really a hard concept to grasp.  People just refuse to do so because they want to validate and justify rude and selfish behavior.  It can be they want to marry on a certain day that's not during weekend. I will still bring the gift and $$ to such an event. 

I care because I don't appreciate being fucking lied to!  I care because I want to actually witness your marriage, I don't want to witness a play.  If I wanted to see a fucking play I'd buy a ticket to a legitimate theatrical production in a theater.

ETA: Apparently @delujm0 is going to be my date to the Opera.

delujm0

I think people are confused.  "wedding" is THE ACT OF GETTING MARRIED.  your "wedding" is the ceremony that makes you married.

 

Your "reception" is the party that is associated with your wedding.  Sometimes receptions are small, and sometimes they are giant blown out shindigs.

 

@sissixin you said that you went to a "wedding" for people who got married at the JOP.  Unless you were at the JOP, you were not at their wedding.  You were at their reception.  Even if they had a fake ceremony when you were there, they were already married, and therefore already had their wedding on a previous date.  What you attended was a reception with a short play beforehand.

 

@PrettyGirlLost i love the opera! :-)

Maggie0829

So it really doesn't bother some people to watch a married couple get dressed up as a bride and groom and be all gittery and nervous as they "marry" the love of their life?  I mean, they are already married.  They are all ready husband and wife so I just don't get the whole reenactment.  Plus I have seen many a PPD on tv (hello Four Weddings and SYTTD) and I just can't get my head around why the bride is teary-eyed and the grown is sweating bullets.  Um, hello, you have already done this so why the theatrics?

I also don't understand why people here in the US do a JOP and then have their "real wedding" a few months later.  Do they not understand that they can have them both at the same time?  Oh, but that's right, those people would rather use the system and benefit from the marriage and then have their PPD rather then be adults and live with their choices.

mrs4everhart

Maggie0829 said:

So it really doesn't bother some people to watch a married couple get dressed up as a bride and groom and be all gittery and nervous as they "marry" the love of their life?  I mean, they are already married.  They are all ready husband and wife so I just don't get the whole reenactment.  Plus I have seen many a PPD on tv (hello Four Weddings and SYTTD) and I just can't get my head around why the bride is teary-eyed and the grown is sweating bullets.  Um, hello, you have already done this so why the theatrics?

I also don't understand why people here in the US do a JOP and then have their "real wedding" a few months later.  Do they not understand that they can have them both at the same time?  Oh, but that's right, those people would rather use the system and benefit from the marriage and then have their PPD rather then be adults and live with their choices.

To the bolded: Because these folks do not consider signing a piece of paper their wedding (yes, I understand that you all do). While the couple may be married in the eyes of the law in the couple's view they are not until they say, aloud, to one and other their vows committing themselves to each other (and involving their deity if they are so inclined). I assume for most of these couples these are their real emotions (the nervousness, the tears) not some theatrical production. And many of you are wrong to classify what they are doing as a "reenactment." That word would hold true if there was anything even remotely similar to signing a piece of paper and actually speaking words of love and fidelity to another human being (whether in front of witnesses or not). Trust, the clerk asking you to affirm your mother's maiden name doesn't give a frog's fat ass if the two people in her presence are going to commit to each other until death does them part. There seems to be a belief around here that in all cities and states around the country some sort of ceremonial proceeding happens at the clerk and recorders office. It doesn't. You can hire a JOP and have a ceremony if you're so inclined but no type of ceremony is required in many places. Just sign and pay.

What I can't seem to wrap my head around is why any guest should bother attending a wedding of two people who have lived together for a long period of time? Or have children together. Nothing changes once they are married. So what's the point? Oh yea, if you feel like attending you go to love and support the couple. Same is true for what you all call PPD's.   

crunchymamaof2

STBMrsEverhart said:

Maggie0829 said:

So it really doesn't bother some people to watch a married couple get dressed up as a bride and groom and be all gittery and nervous as they "marry" the love of their life?  I mean, they are already married.  They are all ready husband and wife so I just don't get the whole reenactment.  Plus I have seen many a PPD on tv (hello Four Weddings and SYTTD) and I just can't get my head around why the bride is teary-eyed and the grown is sweating bullets.  Um, hello, you have already done this so why the theatrics?

I also don't understand why people here in the US do a JOP and then have their "real wedding" a few months later.  Do they not understand that they can have them both at the same time?  Oh, but that's right, those people would rather use the system and benefit from the marriage and then have their PPD rather then be adults and live with their choices.

To the bolded: Because these folks do not consider signing a piece of paper their wedding (yes, I understand that you all do). While the couple may be married in the eyes of the law in the couple's view they are not until they say, aloud, to one and other their vows committing themselves to each other (and involving their deity if they are so inclined). I assume for most of these couples these are their real emotions (the nervousness, the tears) not some theatrical production. And many of you are wrong to classify what they are doing as a "reenactment." That word would hold true if there was anything even remotely similar to signing a piece of paper and actually speaking words of love and fidelity to another human being (whether in front of witnesses or not). Trust, the clerk asking you to affirm your mother's maiden name doesn't give a frog's fat ass if the two people in her presence are going to commit to each other until death does them part. There seems to be a belief around here that in all cities and states around the country some sort of ceremonial proceeding happens at the clerk and recorders office. It doesn't. You can hire a JOP and have a ceremony if you're so inclined but no type of ceremony is required in many places. Just sign and pay.

What I can't seem to wrap my head around is why any guest should bother attending a wedding of two people who have lived together for a long period of time? Or have children together. Nothing changes once they are married. So what's the point? Oh yea, if you feel like attending you go to love and support the couple. Same is true for what you all call PPD's.   

If that's the case, then every single one of those couples who don't consider the paper to make them married shouldn't act married. And that means not accepting any government benefits or any benefits at all that married couples receive.

Which then begs the question- why do it then? Oh yeah, because those benefits are super important, but being the entitled society that we are the fancy party is even more important.

Priorities.

mimiphin

STBMrsEverhart said:

Maggie0829 said:

So it really doesn't bother some people to watch a married couple get dressed up as a bride and groom and be all gittery and nervous as they "marry" the love of their life?  I mean, they are already married.  They are all ready husband and wife so I just don't get the whole reenactment.  Plus I have seen many a PPD on tv (hello Four Weddings and SYTTD) and I just can't get my head around why the bride is teary-eyed and the grown is sweating bullets.  Um, hello, you have already done this so why the theatrics?

I also don't understand why people here in the US do a JOP and then have their "real wedding" a few months later.  Do they not understand that they can have them both at the same time?  Oh, but that's right, those people would rather use the system and benefit from the marriage and then have their PPD rather then be adults and live with their choices.

To the bolded: Because these folks do not consider signing a piece of paper their wedding (yes, I understand that you all do). While the couple may be married in the eyes of the law in the couple's view they are not until they say, aloud, to one and other their vows committing themselves to each other (and involving their deity if they are so inclined). I assume for most of these couples these are their real emotions (the nervousness, the tears) not some theatrical production. And many of you are wrong to classify what they are doing as a "reenactment." That word would hold true if there was anything even remotely similar to signing a piece of paper and actually speaking words of love and fidelity to another human being (whether in front of witnesses or not). Trust, the clerk asking you to affirm your mother's maiden name doesn't give a frog's fat ass if the two people in her presence are going to commit to each other until death does them part. There seems to be a belief around here that in all cities and states around the country some sort of ceremonial proceeding happens at the clerk and recorders office. It doesn't. You can hire a JOP and have a ceremony if you're so inclined but no type of ceremony is required in many places. Just sign and pay.

What I can't seem to wrap my head around is why any guest should bother attending a wedding of two people who have lived together for a long period of time? Or have children together. Nothing changes once they are married. So what's the point? Oh yea, if you feel like attending you go to love and support the couple. Same is true for what you all call PPD's.   

To the first bolded and the first paragraph, When you sign the marriage license you have to say legal vows and state your intent to marry- This is what a JOP does. Your definition of getting married is that they have to say "aloud, to one and other their vows committing themselves to each other (and involving their deity if they are so inclined)"  What I take offence to is when people say that the first time wasn't good enough.
This brings me to my second bolded , Really? Like Really???? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MARRIED!!!!!! I have been living with my now FI for 3 years, We are legally common law because we have been living in a marriage like relationship for more than 2 years. I haven't signed anything, I haven't committed to him, that is what and why we are getting married. To stand up in front of my friends and family and commit and vow to him how much I love and want to spend my life with him.
I just can't even..........

sissixin

STBMrsEverhart Well said! Thank you!

mimiphin

sissixin said:

STBMrsEverhart Well said! Thank you!

aurorajanette

mimiphin said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

Maggie0829 said:

So it really doesn't bother some people to watch a married couple get dressed up as a bride and groom and be all gittery and nervous as they "marry" the love of their life?  I mean, they are already married.  They are all ready husband and wife so I just don't get the whole reenactment.  Plus I have seen many a PPD on tv (hello Four Weddings and SYTTD) and I just can't get my head around why the bride is teary-eyed and the grown is sweating bullets.  Um, hello, you have already done this so why the theatrics?

I also don't understand why people here in the US do a JOP and then have their "real wedding" a few months later.  Do they not understand that they can have them both at the same time?  Oh, but that's right, those people would rather use the system and benefit from the marriage and then have their PPD rather then be adults and live with their choices.

To the bolded: Because these folks do not consider signing a piece of paper their wedding (yes, I understand that you all do). While the couple may be married in the eyes of the law in the couple's view they are not until they say, aloud, to one and other their vows committing themselves to each other (and involving their deity if they are so inclined). I assume for most of these couples these are their real emotions (the nervousness, the tears) not some theatrical production. And many of you are wrong to classify what they are doing as a "reenactment." That word would hold true if there was anything even remotely similar to signing a piece of paper and actually speaking words of love and fidelity to another human being (whether in front of witnesses or not). Trust, the clerk asking you to affirm your mother's maiden name doesn't give a frog's fat ass if the two people in her presence are going to commit to each other until death does them part. There seems to be a belief around here that in all cities and states around the country some sort of ceremonial proceeding happens at the clerk and recorders office. It doesn't. You can hire a JOP and have a ceremony if you're so inclined but no type of ceremony is required in many places. Just sign and pay.

What I can't seem to wrap my head around is why any guest should bother attending a wedding of two people who have lived together for a long period of time? Or have children together. Nothing changes once they are married. So what's the point? Oh yea, if you feel like attending you go to love and support the couple. Same is true for what you all call PPD's.   

To the first bolded and the first paragraph, When you sign the marriage license you have to say legal vows and state your intent to marry- This is what a JOP does. Your definition of getting married is that they have to say "aloud, to one and other their vows committing themselves to each other (and involving their deity if they are so inclined)"  What I take offence to is when people say that the first time wasn't good enough.
This brings me to my second bolded , Really? Like Really???? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MARRIED!!!!!! I have been living with my now FI for 3 years, We are legally common law because we have been living in a marriage like relationship for more than 2 years. I haven't signed anything, I haven't committed to him, that is what and why we are getting married. To stand up in front of my friends and family and commit and vow to him how much I love and want to spend my life with him.
I just can't even..........

I'm with mimiphin on this one. 

I'm sorry, so STBMrsEverhart, it's okay to invite all of your friends/family to your fake wedding that you're lying to them about, but it's not okay to invite my friends and family to my wedding bc FI and I already live together? Living together and being married are not at all the same thing. While you may fall into a similar routine, living with someone and committing to a lease is in no way the same as committing to them for a lifetime. I seem to recall you implying in other posts that you and your FI live together. Isn't that a little hypocritical?