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

Cookie Pusher

I live in a state with no common-law marriage, so FI and I are nothing more than roommates in the eyes of the law. Granted, we're roommates that have lived together at several addresses for over a decade, but that's it. Unless we are legally married (that unimportant paper-signing bit PPD-ers like to brush aside), I have NO LEGAL STANDING. If he were in a coma, I wouldn't be allowed to see him. Even though I am closer to him than any of his family is, I am legally not allowed to make any medical decisions for him. If he died, I am not entitlted to ANYTHING of his. So you can bet your ass that my wedding is more real than a re-enactment.

delujm0

Cookie Pusher said:

I live in a state with no common-law marriage, so FI and I are nothing more than roommates in the eyes of the law. Granted, we're roommates that have lived together at several addresses for over a decade, but that's it. Unless we are legally married (that unimportant paper-signing bit PPD-ers like to brush aside), I have NO LEGAL STANDING. If he were in a coma, I wouldn't be allowed to see him. Even though I am closer to him than any of his family is, I am legally not allowed to make any medical decisions for him. If he died, I am not entitlted to ANYTHING of his. So you can bet your ass that my wedding is more real than a re-enactment.

Agree.  FI and i have lived together for almost 8 years now.  I had surgery last year and i had to make special provisions for him to be the responsible person to deal with me afterwards (aka be in the post-surgery room with me and take me home) because we are not married, and therefore he would otherwise not be legally allowed to do so.  God forbid one of us was in a terrible car accident and unconscious...our parents would have to come down here (an 8-10 hour drive) to tell the hospital to allow us access to each other.  Because we are not married.  But we will be after our wedding on May 31.  Our living situation won't change, but a lot of other things will.

 

This is in no way comparable to getting actually legally married at the JOP, which would have allowed us acces to each other in the situations above, and then later having another meaningless, fake ceremony for show followed by a reception.  YOU ARE MARRIED ON THE DAY OF YOUR CEREMONY.  If you get married at the JOP, that is a fine choice.  You don't need to have a second ceremony afterwards.  Because you are already married, whether you "feel" like you're married or not.

 

To say anything different is a complete affront to the tens of thousands of brides every year who get married at the JOP and never have another ceremony, because they don't need to.  My aunt and uncle had a JOP wedding.  They've been married for 35 years.  And they were able to make their marriage work even without a poofy white dress and a blown out party.

mrs4everhart

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 No, sorry, that's incorrect. You may state your intent but at least in my state, there's no vow ceremony at the clerk and recorder's office. Swearing the information contained on the form is correct to the best of my knowledge is simply not the same as vows said to my FI at some point in the future. - This is what a JOP does. You do not need to hire a JOP in all jurisdictions. You may self-affirm and therefore there is no ceremony. 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. So if you're legally common law, why do you need a pretty dress up party? I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I don't personally care if you do or you don't. 
I just can't even.......... 

mrs4everhart

aurorajanette said:

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?

Oh, indeed we do. For going on 9 years, which is why I have a hard time understanding why it's ok for people who are common law married to have a wedding, in the eyes of the anti-"PPD" brigade! If your state considers you married, either by license or common law shouldn't that prevent those people from getting married "again"? Trust me, I don't care either way, I just don't understand how you guys make these "PPD" arguments for some but not others. 

mrs4everhart

Cookie Pusher said:

I live in a state with no common-law marriage, so FI and I are nothing more than roommates in the eyes of the law. Granted, we're roommates that have lived together at several addresses for over a decade, but that's it. Unless we are legally married (that unimportant paper-signing bit PPD-ers like to brush aside), I have NO LEGAL STANDING. If he were in a coma, I wouldn't be allowed to see him. Even though I am closer to him than any of his family is, I am legally not allowed to make any medical decisions for him. If he died, I am not entitlted to ANYTHING of his. So you can bet your ass that my wedding is more real than a re-enactment.

First off, you make the decision every day to live where you do. Second, you do not need to be married to be someone's medical power of attorney. Living wills cover all that and more. You do not need to be married to be the sole beneficiary of his insurance policies. You do not need to be married to be the sole recipient of belongings should he die. A simple will covers that. Because you (incorrectly) think the only way to be legally covered in the event of an emergency is to be married shouldn't be the basis of judging other people's unions. My FI has had me covered legally for years, and I him. Long before we even discussed a wedding we made sure we were protected in the event of an emergency. 

mrs4everhart

delujm0 said:

Cookie Pusher said:

I live in a state with no common-law marriage, so FI and I are nothing more than roommates in the eyes of the law. Granted, we're roommates that have lived together at several addresses for over a decade, but that's it. Unless we are legally married (that unimportant paper-signing bit PPD-ers like to brush aside), I have NO LEGAL STANDING. If he were in a coma, I wouldn't be allowed to see him. Even though I am closer to him than any of his family is, I am legally not allowed to make any medical decisions for him. If he died, I am not entitlted to ANYTHING of his. So you can bet your ass that my wedding is more real than a re-enactment.

Agree.  FI and i have lived together for almost 8 years now.  I had surgery last year and i had to make special provisions for him to be the responsible person to deal with me afterwards (aka be in the post-surgery room with me and take me home) because we are not married, and therefore he would otherwise not be legally allowed to do so.  God forbid one of us was in a terrible car accident and unconscious...our parents would have to come down here (an 8-10 hour drive) to tell the hospital to allow us access to each other.  Because we are not married.  But we will be after our wedding on May 31.  Our living situation won't change, but a lot of other things will.

 

This is in no way comparable to getting actually legally married at the JOP, which would have allowed us acces to each other in the situations above, and then later having another meaningless, fake ceremony for show followed by a reception.  YOU ARE MARRIED ON THE DAY OF YOUR CEREMONY.  If you get married at the JOP, that is a fine choice.  You don't need to have a second ceremony afterwards.  Because you are already married, whether you "feel" like you're married or not.

 

To say anything different is a complete affront to the tens of thousands of brides every year who get married at the JOP and never have another ceremony, because they don't need to. It's only an affront if these tens of thousands of bries take it as one. Otherwise it's two people's business most not likely having zero effect on these ten of thousands of strangers.  My aunt and uncle had a JOP wedding.  They've been married for 35 years.  And they were able to make their marriage work even without a poofy white dress and a blown out party.

NYCBruin

I'm just going to leave this here:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/marriage1.htm

And anyone who thinks that using other legal instruments achieves the "exact same" results, is misinformed.  Until you are officially someones next of kin, you always run the risk of the actual next of kin challenging.  Even if something that is in writing and signed says otherwise.  There are literally hundreds of news stories on these types of situations every year.  

Oh and "common law marriage" is far less common and more complicated than most people think.  It also doesn't necessarily have all the benefits of marriage.  See here:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx

mrs4everhart

NYCBruin said: I'm just going to leave this here:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/marriage1.htm

And anyone who thinks that using other legal instruments achieves the "exact same" results, is misinformed.  Until you are officially someones next of kin, you always run the risk of the actual next of kin challenging.  Even if something that is in writing and signed says otherwise.  There are literally hundreds of news stories on these types of situations every year.  
Oh and "common law marriage" is far less common and more complicated than most people think.  It also doesn't necessarily have all the benefits of marriage.  See here:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx

I'm in no way saying the two are the exact same thing. Yet many states see them as damn near identical (some do not). Colorado for example has some crazy common law statutes and it is not uncommon for people here who have been together a gajillion years to actually have to file for divorce while breaking up although they never (thought) they legally married. 

My point is, if you are one of these people who end up in a common law situation, whether intentionally or you just fit all the requirements by virtue of the nature of your relationship, how is it NOT a "PPD" when these people get married?  It seems like they fit the description you guys have made your case on: their local government considers them married (married enough to grant them a divorce anyway, seems pretty damn married to me) so any wedding thereafter would be superfluous, therefore unnecessary, ergo a "PPD." No? 

Sabinus15

NYCBruin

Re: Colorado laws (from the AG's website)

The common-law elements of a valid marriage are that the couples (1) are free to contract a valid ceremonial marriage, i.e., they are not already married to someone else; (2) hold themselves out as husband and wife; (3) consent to the marriage; (4) live together; and (5) have the reputation in the community as being married. The single most important element under the common law was the mutual consent of a couple presently to be husband and wife. All the rest were considered evidence of this consent or exchange of promises. 

FWIW someone has to claim this for it to exist.  The government doesn't "consider" couples married until someone takes an action to do so (i.e. makes a claim that they are married to their partner who has left and a court rules in their favor).

Cookie Pusher

STBMrsEverhart said:

Cookie Pusher said:

I live in a state with no common-law marriage, so FI and I are nothing more than roommates in the eyes of the law. Granted, we're roommates that have lived together at several addresses for over a decade, but that's it. Unless we are legally married (that unimportant paper-signing bit PPD-ers like to brush aside), I have NO LEGAL STANDING. If he were in a coma, I wouldn't be allowed to see him. Even though I am closer to him than any of his family is, I am legally not allowed to make any medical decisions for him. If he died, I am not entitlted to ANYTHING of his. So you can bet your ass that my wedding is more real than a re-enactment.

First off, you make the decision every day to live where you do. Second, you do not need to be married to be someone's medical power of attorney. Living wills cover all that and more. You do not need to be married to be the sole beneficiary of his insurance policies. You do not need to be married to be the sole recipient of belongings should he die. A simple will covers that. Because you (incorrectly) think the only way to be legally covered in the event of an emergency is to be married shouldn't be the basis of judging other people's unions. My FI has had me covered legally for years, and I him. Long before we even discussed a wedding we made sure we were protected in the event of an emergency. 

Yep, we choose to live together. BUT WE ARE NOT MARRIED IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. New Jersey does not recognize commonlaw marriage, no matter how long you're together or where you live.  And yes, we chose to live here because our jobs were here. Because I was born and raised here, and have made my living here as an adult, it's somehow my fault I'm not commonlaw married? I don't WANT to be commonlaw married, I want to be married with the signing of the paperwork - which is why I'm having a wedding.

And you can be in each other's wills all you want, but without being legally married in this state, the next of kin can contest and win. My mother was married to my step-father, he died, his family contested my mother's right as surviving spouse because they lied in court saying they were about to file for divorce. A judge actually bought their argument and my mother had to go through a nearly 3 year legal battle. If asshole relatives can do that when two people actually ARE married, what makes you think there is any protection for couples who aren't married?

mrs4everhart

Cookie Pusher said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

Cookie Pusher said:

I live in a state with no common-law marriage, so FI and I are nothing more than roommates in the eyes of the law. Granted, we're roommates that have lived together at several addresses for over a decade, but that's it. Unless we are legally married (that unimportant paper-signing bit PPD-ers like to brush aside), I have NO LEGAL STANDING. If he were in a coma, I wouldn't be allowed to see him. Even though I am closer to him than any of his family is, I am legally not allowed to make any medical decisions for him. If he died, I am not entitlted to ANYTHING of his. So you can bet your ass that my wedding is more real than a re-enactment.

First off, you make the decision every day to live where you do. Second, you do not need to be married to be someone's medical power of attorney. Living wills cover all that and more. You do not need to be married to be the sole beneficiary of his insurance policies. You do not need to be married to be the sole recipient of belongings should he die. A simple will covers that. Because you (incorrectly) think the only way to be legally covered in the event of an emergency is to be married shouldn't be the basis of judging other people's unions. My FI has had me covered legally for years, and I him. Long before we even discussed a wedding we made sure we were protected in the event of an emergency. 

Yep, we choose to live together. BUT WE ARE NOT MARRIED IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. New Jersey does not recognize commonlaw marriage, no matter how long you're together or where you live.  And yes, we chose to live here because our jobs were here. Because I was born and raised here, and have made my living here as an adult, it's somehow my fault I'm not commonlaw married? I don't WANT to be commonlaw married, I want to be married with the signing of the paperwork - which is why I'm having a wedding. You seem to think I'm pro-common law marriage. I'm actually indifferent to common law marriages one way or the other. My point was that you make a conscious choice to live where they are not recognized, and that you see uncomfortable with the fact that in the eyes of the law in your state you are not protected in case of emergency until you are legally married.  I went on to list many ways one can protect their rights as unmarried, cohabiting people. Yes, overzealous, crazy relatives can challenge all sorts of legal documents and sadly, some people do get out-lawyered. But as you correctly asserted just being married doesn't stop people from challenging their loved one's estates and other documents. If you want a wedding, great have one, but it is not the only way to protect yourself in case of emergency. 

And you can be in each other's wills all you want, but without being legally married in this state, the next of kin can contest and win. My mother was married to my step-father, he died, his family contested my mother's right as surviving spouse because they lied in court saying they were about to file for divorce. A judge actually bought their argument and my mother had to go through a nearly 3 year legal battle. If asshole relatives can do that when two people actually ARE married, what makes you think there is any protection for couples who aren't married?

mrs4everhart

NYCBruin said:

Re: Colorado laws (from the AG's website)

The common-law elements of a valid marriage are that the couples (1) are free to contract a valid ceremonial marriage, i.e., they are not already married to someone else; (2) hold themselves out as husband and wife; (3) consent to the marriage; (4) live together; and (5) have the reputation in the community as being married. The single most important element under the common law was the mutual consent of a couple presently to be husband and wife. All the rest were considered evidence of this consent or exchange of promises. 

FWIW someone has to claim this for it to exist.  The government doesn't "consider" couples married until someone takes an action to do so (i.e. makes a claim that they are married to their partner who has left and a court rules in their favor).

That is correct. I'm quite familiar with the rules of common law marriages in CO. All too often this silly provision is a giant sticking point and is very hard to prove/disprove once shit hits the fan within a couple's defunct relationship. It can become a vast quagmire of he-said, she-said. I'm not particularly enamored with the concept of common law marriages in general but now I'm just intrigued to understand how once the CL couple decides to go full-on married, how is not a "PPD" (if they've been holding themselves out to the public as married but hadn't yet filed their license? )

NYCBruin

STBMrsEverhart said:

NYCBruin said:

Re: Colorado laws (from the AG's website)

The common-law elements of a valid marriage are that the couples (1) are free to contract a valid ceremonial marriage, i.e., they are not already married to someone else; (2) hold themselves out as husband and wife; (3) consent to the marriage; (4) live together; and (5) have the reputation in the community as being married. The single most important element under the common law was the mutual consent of a couple presently to be husband and wife. All the rest were considered evidence of this consent or exchange of promises. 

FWIW someone has to claim this for it to exist.  The government doesn't "consider" couples married until someone takes an action to do so (i.e. makes a claim that they are married to their partner who has left and a court rules in their favor).

That is correct. I'm quite familiar with the rules of common law marriages in CO. All too often this silly provision is a giant sticking point and is very hard to prove/disprove once shit hits the fan within a couple's defunct relationship. It can become a vast quagmire of he-said, she-said. I'm not particularly enamored with the concept of common law marriages in general but now I'm just intrigued to understand how once the CL couple decides to go full-on married, how is not a "PPD" (if they've been holding themselves out to the public as married but hadn't yet filed their license? )


If a couple is actually common law married (I.e. Meets all the requirements such as holding themselves out as such), then I would still take issue with them having a big "wedding" because they are actually married already.

mrs4everhart

NYCBruin said:

NYCBruin said:

Re: Colorado laws (from the AG's website)

The common-law elements of a valid marriage are that the couples (1) are free to contract a valid ceremonial marriage, i.e., they are not already married to someone else; (2) hold themselves out as husband and wife; (3) consent to the marriage; (4) live together; and (5) have the reputation in the community as being married. The single most important element under the common law was the mutual consent of a couple presently to be husband and wife. All the rest were considered evidence of this consent or exchange of promises. 

FWIW someone has to claim this for it to exist.  The government doesn't "consider" couples married until someone takes an action to do so (i.e. makes a claim that they are married to their partner who has left and a court rules in their favor).

That is correct. I'm quite familiar with the rules of common law marriages in CO. All too often this silly provision is a giant sticking point and is very hard to prove/disprove once shit hits the fan within a couple's defunct relationship. It can become a vast quagmire of he-said, she-said. I'm not particularly enamored with the concept of common law marriages in general but now I'm just intrigued to understand how once the CL couple decides to go full-on married, how is not a "PPD" (if they've been holding themselves out to the public as married but hadn't yet filed their license? )

If a couple is actually common law married (I.e. Meets all the requirements such as holding themselves out as such), then I would still take issue with them having a big "wedding" because they are actually married already.

I'll say this much @NYCBruin, you sure are hella consistent!

Cookie Pusher

STBMrsEverhart said:

You seem to think I'm pro-common law marriage. I'm actually indifferent to common law marriages one way or the other. My point was that you make a conscious choice to live where they are not recognized, and that you see uncomfortable with the fact that in the eyes of the law in your state you are not protected in case of emergency until you are legally married.  I went on to list many ways one can protect their rights as unmarried, cohabiting people. Yes, overzealous, crazy relatives can challenge all sorts of legal documents and sadly, some people do get out-lawyered. But as you correctly asserted just being married doesn't stop people from challenging their loved one's estates and other documents. If you want a wedding, great have one, but it is not the only way to protect yourself in case of emergency. 

I'm not at all uncomfortable with the laws in my state. However, since you so callously decided that living together was so similar to being married that people should be so offended as to not attend my actual wedding, I wanted to illuminate for you that no, I'm not having a PPD. I am not in any way, shape or form married. I am having only one ceremony and only one reception - on my wedding day. If, for some reason, FI and I "have" to do a JOP wedding before that day, then we will do that and not have a pretend wedding afterwards just so I can wear a white dress and throw a party. 

As for legal issues, if you're MARRIED, it's far easier to defend yourself and actually win. When you're not married, it's much harder. There's news stories about wills being contested, end-of-life decisions being challenged, etc. on a fairly regular basis. And the law typically sides with a spouse if there is one or the next of kin if there isn't. That's all I was trying to point out - in no way is a will an ironclad protection for unmarried partners.

mrs4everhart

Cookie Pusher said: STBMrsEverhart said:You seem to think I'm pro-common law marriage. I'm actually indifferent to common law marriages one way or the other. My point was that you make a conscious choice to live where they are not recognized, and that you see uncomfortable with the fact that in the eyes of the law in your state you are not protected in case of emergency until you are legally married.  I went on to list many ways one can protect their rights as unmarried, cohabiting people. Yes, overzealous, crazy relatives can challenge all sorts of legal documents and sadly, some people do get out-lawyered. But as you correctly asserted just being married doesn't stop people from challenging their loved one's estates and other documents. If you want a wedding, great have one, but it is not the only way to protect yourself in case of emergency. 

I'm not at all uncomfortable with the laws in my state. However, since you so callously decided that living together was so similar to being married that people should be so offended as to not attend my actual wedding, I wanted to illuminate for you that no, I'm not having a PPD. I am not in any way, shape or form married. I am having only one ceremony and only one reception - on my wedding day. If, for some reason, FI and I "have" to do a JOP wedding before that day, then we will do that and not have a pretend wedding afterwards just so I can wear a white dress and throw a party. 
As for legal issues, if you're MARRIED, it's far easier to defend yourself and actually win. When you're not married, it's much harder. There's news stories about wills being contested, end-of-life decisions being challenged, etc. on a fairly regular basis. And the law typically sides with a spouse if there is one or the next of kin if there isn't. That's all I was trying to point out - in no way is a will an ironclad protection for unmarried partners.





Thanks for the attempted illumination. It was super enlightening. My intent was never to be callous, as I have no issues with ANY type of wedding/marriages/celebrations personally - only one couple's wedding is my concern. However, I still see no difference from a guest's perspective in wanting/not wanting to attend a wedding of two people who have been playing house for a number of years. I openly use my own relationship as a great example. After 9 years of living together and all the clear and open declarations that we have made to the world that we are in it for the long haul (joint property, beneficiaries, joint credit, joint accounts, medical power of attorney, so on and so forth) what difference does watching our wedding make to our guests other than watching us declare our love for each other? Once all the standard benchmarks of what married people generally do have all been met a long time prior to the wedding, what is left for the guests? To watch and hear two people who love each other profess as much. And I distinctly remember stating, "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" with regards to why people should want to attend the wedding of couples living together first. So if you weren't so quick to defend your relationship and actually read what I said, I was supporting people supporting such unions even though these types of unions can be likened to shutting the barn door once the horse was let out (just apparently not in New Jersey or if you don't draft ironclad paperwork). Now, you sound pretty pleased with yourself that you're "not having a PPD, that you're in no way married currently and having only one ceremony and one reception." To which I say, great, go nuts with that. Just don't stay in that state of cohabitation too long. Because just like the girls on this etiquette board practically guarantee "someone" will be offended by (insert anything from cash bars to waiting too long between the ceremony and reception) someone is likely to side-eye the wedding of two people who have been living together for I don't know, 9 years like some of us........

ETA: Not sure what happened to the formatting. 

crunchymamaof2

The point is you have the right to ONE wedding. A wedding is when two people become wed, legally and possible religiously. Two people living together isn't that different than being married, you are right about that. But marriage comes with benefits that you can't be granted otherwise (in MOST cases). Almost everyone has the right to be married in our country and hopefully I'll be able to say everyone can in the near future. How that couple chooses to get married is their business. Whether it be accepting being common law , a courthouse, a JOP, or a traditional wedding. But the point is you choose one. You don't get to redo your wedding because the first one wasn't fancy enough or good enough. A couple living together is not the same as a couple choosing to get married

LDay2014

I think the most basic 'nuts and bolts' of this argument are whether or not you are lying to the guests at your event.

If you are already legally married and have a later date reception to 'celebrate' - you're okay!

If you are legally common law and take the steps to be legally married - you're okay!

If you are already legally married and have a second 'wedding' without telling your guests that you are already husband and wife - You're Lying!

No body likes to be lied to.  That's what this is about, being honest, upfront, and owning your choices as an adult. Regardless of the circumstances, it's about being honest to those who you hold closest to you.

Cookie Pusher

acove2006 said:

The point is you have the right to ONE wedding. A wedding is when two people become wed, legally and possible religiously. Two people living together isn't that different than being married, you are right about that. But marriage comes with benefits that you can't be granted otherwise (in MOST cases). Almost everyone has the right to be married in our country and hopefully I'll be able to say everyone can in the near future. How that couple chooses to get married is their business. Whether it be accepting being common law , a courthouse, a JOP, or a traditional wedding. But the point is you choose one. You don't get to redo your wedding because the first one wasn't fancy enough or good enough. A couple living together is not the same as a couple choosing to get married

Thank you, @acove2006! That's the point of Wedding VS. PPD. If you aren't legally married, you can still have a wedding. If you're legally married, you can't! The government doesn't give a hoot if you have vows or a church or anything else - signing the paperwork and affirming that it is true and accurate is what makes you married. That's why people why quickie weddings in Vegas are still legally binding!

APDSS22

While I don't think anyone will dispute the fact that marriage is a beautiful thing between two consenting adults, it's important to realize that even if a couple "has to" get married before their planned wedding day, they don't have to go through with a sham ceremony.  They can just scale it back to a kick-ass party to celebrate their recent wedding at their reception location.  The argument that they want to hear each other say those vows to each other and that's really the important part has to be a load of bunk because however they chose to get married, they could've said those vows to each other at that time even if it wasn't required. 

If they want to be witnessed avowing their love and commitment in front of family and friends, they could have invited them along or put off whatever benefits they "had to have" until their planned wedding.  True, it's difficult to wait when you could just pop over to the courthouse and get on your shiny new husband's insurance but it's the adult thing to do.  Marrying for benefits or citizenship is a legitimate life choice but why do you have to have the big ceremony afterward unless it's so you can play dress up and pretend to get married again?  If you need religious validation (which is another thing a couple can wait for) a quiet, intimate ceremony with your new husband, your priest/rabbi/preacher/priestess/etc and your chosen deity (or deities) and possibly some close family members is usually an option.

Basically, there is really no good reason that a couple can have that will make a fake ceremony (the hallmark of a PPD) necessary.  If you want to celebrate with your family and friends, have a great party, wear a cute dress and let the good times roll.  Most people enjoy parties for all sorts of reasons that are a lot less awesome than two people making a lifetime commitment ("day that ends with a 'Y' party" for example.)

leelabear

Wow, now I know where the writers of "Mean Girls" got ideas for the movie. The internet brings out the worst in people because they don't have to show their face. Please give your opinion but don't be so rude.

crunchymamaof2

leelabear said:

Wow, now I know where the writers of "Mean Girls" got ideas for the movie. The internet brings out the worst in people because they don't have to show their face. Please give your opinion but don't be so rude.

Are you kidding? People are having a debate here. If you're such an expert on the internet you should know you need to grow a thicker skin and stop trying to be a martyr.

leelabear

Cool, where can I start the dabate that you look fat in your ugly dress? Is that better? My previous comment yesterday wasn't in reaction to your earlier debate. Debate, cool but some others on here are down right vicious.

Emmy1493

leelabear said:

Cool, where can I start the dabate that you look fat in your ugly dress? Is that better? My previous comment yesterday wasn't in reaction to your earlier debate. Debate, cool but some others on here are down right vicious.

And yours is not? Haha, ok...

@KnotPorscha

Get this little troll outta here. Be gone-Shoo.

TerriHugg

acove2006 said:

The point is you have the right to ONE wedding. A wedding is when two people become wed, legally and possible religiously. Two people living together isn't that different than being married, you are right about that. But marriage comes with benefits that you can't be granted otherwise (in MOST cases). Almost everyone has the right to be married in our country and hopefully I'll be able to say everyone can in the near future. How that couple chooses to get married is their business. Whether it be accepting being common law , a courthouse, a JOP, or a traditional wedding. But the point is you choose one. You don't get to redo your wedding because the first one wasn't fancy enough or good enough. A couple living together is not the same as a couple choosing to get married

@acove2006

I promise I'm not trying to stir trouble. Nor am I trying to pretend toknow everything about etiquette or give advice. However, in regards to the bolded isn't that technically incorrect according to Miss Manners? In an article, written by Miss Manners in the Washington post, she says that a couple is technically allowed one legal ceremony and one religious ceremony. She also notes that only one of these ceremonies has a party attached. They just need to quickly follow each other. (I guess "quickly" can be interpreted in several ways.) So assuming this post is accurate and depending on how you choose to interpret "quickly" a couple who is legally married one day and than has a religious ceremony another day is technically not acting against etiquette. (And yes, I do acknowledge that she does say you shouldn't be playing dress up or make guests watch a rerun later on in the article.)

Here's the link to the article and also the passage in it that has the information above. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012800896.html

 "But, dear people, a wedding ceremony is a legal and/or religious ceremony. (Yes, a couple is allowed one of each, but in that case, the two quickly follow each other, and only one has a party attached.)"

My two cents: Do I acknowledge that getting legally married one day and having another ceremony the next is against etiquette? Of course, I do. Do I care? No. I personally don't think how people choose to "legitimize" their union is my business. I'll also note that I have been to weddings before where I found out that couple was legally married prior to the date everyone was invited to. I attended happily and even upon learning the information I was still happy. They had their reasons for doing what they did and I don't believe It's my business to know why they chose that route. Nor do I think they owe me an explanation. As long as the love is real, I'm happy and will continue to view the couple just the same. However, I do understand why some people feel differently in regards to the subject. 

*Sorry if the article has been discussed in this thread before. I'm late to the game. Carry on...

mimiphin

TerriHugg said:

acove2006 said:

The point is you have the right to ONE wedding. A wedding is when two people become wed, legally and possible religiously. Two people living together isn't that different than being married, you are right about that. But marriage comes with benefits that you can't be granted otherwise (in MOST cases). Almost everyone has the right to be married in our country and hopefully I'll be able to say everyone can in the near future. How that couple chooses to get married is their business. Whether it be accepting being common law , a courthouse, a JOP, or a traditional wedding. But the point is you choose one. You don't get to redo your wedding because the first one wasn't fancy enough or good enough. A couple living together is not the same as a couple choosing to get married

@acove2006

I promise I'm not trying to stir trouble. Nor am I trying to pretend toknow everything about etiquette or give advice. However, in regards to the bolded isn't that technically incorrect according to Miss Manners? In an article, written by Miss Manners in the Washington post, she says that a couple is technically allowed one legal ceremony and one religious ceremony. She also notes that only one of these ceremonies has a party attached. They just need to quickly follow each other. (I guess "quickly" can be interpreted in several ways.) So assuming this post is accurate and depending on how you choose to interpret "quickly" a couple who is legally married one day and than has a religious ceremony another day is technically not acting against etiquette. (And yes, I do acknowledge that she does say you shouldn't be playing dress up or make guests watch a rerun later on in the article.)

Here's the link to the article and also the passage in it that has the information above. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012800896.html

 "But, dear people, a wedding ceremony is a legal and/or religious ceremony. (Yes, a couple is allowed one of each, but in that case, the two quickly follow each other, and only one has a party attached.)"

My two cents: Do I acknowledge that getting legally married one day and having another ceremony the next is against etiquette? Of course, I do. Do I care? No. I personally don't think how people choose to "legitimize" their union is my business. I'll also note that I have been to weddings before where I found out that couple was legally married prior to the date everyone was invited to. I attended happily and even upon learning the information I was still happy. They had their reasons for doing what they did and I don't believe It's my business to know why they chose that route. Nor do I think they owe me an explanation. As long as the love is real, I'm happy and will continue to view the couple just the same. However, I do understand why some people feel differently in regards to the subject. 

*Sorry if the article has been discussed in this thread before. I'm late to the game. Carry on...

My understanding is that this is only the case where a religious ceremony can not be the legal ceremony which is common in Europe. But that is required by law. Google Grace Kelly when she became the Princess of Monaco. Or when (I know this is a tv show but it works!) Lane and Zack got married on the Gilmore Girls they had the Grandmother's Ceremony and then they had the Mother's ceremony (On the same day).

sabrina69barnes

After reading this I've learned I had what would qualify as a PPD? Not that I need validation 6 years later but after reading responses I'm curious what internet strangers think of my situation.

When DH and I met we both had small children. We planned nice but still very small and simple wedding for October. Everything was fully paid for, non-refundable, and we weren't allowed to change the dates. DH was going through a custody battle and our lawyer advised we get legally married early so a week later our pastor married us at our church. We had our BM and MOH come to sign the marriage license. DH's ex was refusing to follow the custody order at the time so there was no way for the kids to be there. At this wedding we had typical vows.

Our guest list was tiny for our "big" wedding. Including us it was less than 40 people.  At the request of some family members I did make a registry but didn't originally plan to. I didn't want a shower or any of the other typical pre-wedding events. Our vows and ceremony in October included our children. We made a different commitment verbally than we did in August.  In August the wedding was about us as a couple but in October it was about us as a family.  It wasn't a re-enactment of getting married in August.

DH and I celebrate our anniversary in August and in October we celebrate our family anniversary. It wasn't what we had originally planned but I'm glad it worked out the way it did. I really like having the two days separate.

JCbride2015

sabrina69barnes said:

After reading this I've learned I had what would qualify as a PPD? Not that I need validation 6 years later but after reading responses I'm curious what internet strangers think of my situation.

When DH and I met we both had small children. We planned nice but still very small and simple wedding for October. Everything was fully paid for, non-refundable, and we weren't allowed to change the dates. DH was going through a custody battle and our lawyer advised we get legally married early so a week later our pastor married us at our church. We had our BM and MOH come to sign the marriage license. DH's ex was refusing to follow the custody order at the time so there was no way for the kids to be there. At this wedding we had typical vows.

Our guest list was tiny for our "big" wedding. Including us it was less than 40 people.  At the request of some family members I did make a registry but didn't originally plan to. I didn't want a shower or any of the other typical pre-wedding events. Our vows and ceremony in October included our children. We made a different commitment verbally than we did in August.  In August the wedding was about us as a couple but in October it was about us as a family.  It wasn't a re-enactment of getting married in August.

DH and I celebrate our anniversary in August and in October we celebrate our family anniversary. It wasn't what we had originally planned but I'm glad it worked out the way it did. I really like having the two days separate.

Yep, definitely a PPD.  But obviously six years later we can't stop you!

crunchymamaof2

Definitely a PPD. You could have had a great party on the original date instead of trying to reenact the ceremony. And celebrating two anniversaries is a bit much IMO.

 

@Terrihugg. In the US/Canada you can get married legally and religiously at the same time, which isn't true for many parts of Europe from what I've learned here. Miss Manners isn't giving the okay to have two totally separate weddings as long as one is legal and one religious. I take it to mean that a couple can get married legally, with a traditional wedding and reception, and sometime later get their marriage blessed by their church (or a convalidation if they're Catholic). That wouldn't include an audience (except maybe immediate family) or a reception like party afterwards. I personally think these two things need to be done far off from each other since they both can be done the same day otherwise. If being married in your church is *that* important then you get married, legally & religiously, in one day. My example is more for people that later begin attending church or convert to a religion, etc.

At least, that's my interpretation.