Wedding Etiquette Forum

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

1131416181954

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

  • TerriHuggTerriHugg member
    Fifth Anniversary 500 Comments 100 Love Its First Answer
    edited January 2014
    acove2006 said:

    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.

    Hmmm I guess I could understand the way you are interpreting it. And I'm aware that you can't have a religious and legal ceremony at the same time in some countries. However, that isn't common knowledge. (At least, I don't think so.) So I feel if the idea of having two ceremonies is only ok if you don't have the option to have both the religious and ceremony at the same time, it would have clearly stated that in the article. That's why I'm of the mind that maybe you really are able to host two ceremonies (one legal and one religious) if one is held not too long after the first.  

    But I guess that's what happens when it's not clearly stated - a bunch of a different interpretations. Oh well! :)
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • A lot of people on here strongly criticize having two ceremonies for the reason of getting government/legal benefits sooner. But here's a hypothetical scenario: a couple is considering having a legal ceremony early and than a spiritual ceremony later after originally planning on having a regular ceremony and reception on the same day. Everything was paid for, invitations sent out. They would consider their wedding day to be the day of the spiritual ceremony and reception. Reasons for the two ceremonies would be: complications with timing of deployment, lack of work, and they were broke and the bride would literally be HOMELESS if they didn't didn't get married so she could live in the military housing. 

    Surely this is a situation in which the ends justifies breaking "etiquette." 

    Tell me it cannot be possible that Miss Manners or ANYONE would suggest that someone live on the streets for fear of making their guests sit through a 20 minute "fake" ceremony. Against etiquette or no.

    Does 20 minutes of discomfort for guests really outweigh weeks of homelessness for the bride?

     I don't think it does. And I think you should feel bad for judging people who have a PPD because what if they are in a similar situation? You don't know their financial/legal/spiritual situation. Okay, so you think it's bad etiquette. Fine. Don't recommend that people have one, but to really "throw the invitation in the trash" because you can't see that someone might have a different situation than yourself is just about the shallowest thing I have ever heard. 
    sissixinDaringtoDreamdwhereicome
  • Jells2dot0Jells2dot0 Cowtown mod
    Moderator Ninth Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its
    Sabinus15 said:

    A lot of people on here strongly criticize having two ceremonies for the reason of getting government/legal benefits sooner. But here's a hypothetical scenario: a couple is considering having a legal ceremony early and than a spiritual ceremony later after originally planning on having a regular ceremony and reception on the same day. Everything was paid for, invitations sent out. They would consider their wedding day to be the day of the spiritual ceremony and reception. Reasons for the two ceremonies would be: complications with timing of deployment, lack of work, and they were broke and the bride would literally be HOMELESS if they didn't didn't get married so she could live in the military housing. 


    Surely this is a situation in which the ends justifies breaking "etiquette." 

    Tell me it cannot be possible that Miss Manners or ANYONE would suggest that someone live on the streets for fear of making their guests sit through a 20 minute "fake" ceremony. Against etiquette or no.

    Does 20 minutes of discomfort for guests really outweigh weeks of homelessness for the bride?

     I don't think it does. And I think you should feel bad for judging people who have a PPD because what if they are in a similar situation? You don't know their financial/legal/spiritual situation. Okay, so you think it's bad etiquette. Fine. Don't recommend that people have one, but to really "throw the invitation in the trash" because you can't see that someone might have a different situation than yourself is just about the shallowest thing I have ever heard. 
    It's a widely know "rule" that you're supposed to have 6 months worth of expenses saved up in the case of emergencies. So, some people are young and haven't been working that long or don't have many expenses, so maybe 3 months will get them by. If after you have paid for your wedding and you are that broke and destitute that you have nothing saved and you are about to end up on the streets, you are probably not ready for marriage or starting a family. The last thing you should have done was drained your savings- your well being- for a party.

     







    luckysnorkelaurorajanettemcgarci2jenniferurs
  • Sabinus15 said:
    A lot of people on here strongly criticize having two ceremonies for the reason of getting government/legal benefits sooner. But here's a hypothetical scenario: a couple is considering having a legal ceremony early and than a spiritual ceremony later after originally planning on having a regular ceremony and reception on the same day. Everything was paid for, invitations sent out. They would consider their wedding day to be the day of the spiritual ceremony and reception. Reasons for the two ceremonies would be: complications with timing of deployment, lack of work, and they were broke and the bride would literally be HOMELESS if they didn't didn't get married so she could live in the military housing. 

    Surely this is a situation in which the ends justifies breaking "etiquette." 

    Tell me it cannot be possible that Miss Manners or ANYONE would suggest that someone live on the streets for fear of making their guests sit through a 20 minute "fake" ceremony. Against etiquette or no.

    Does 20 minutes of discomfort for guests really outweigh weeks of homelessness for the bride?

     I don't think it does. And I think you should feel bad for judging people who have a PPD because what if they are in a similar situation? You don't know their financial/legal/spiritual situation. Okay, so you think it's bad etiquette. Fine. Don't recommend that people have one, but to really "throw the invitation in the trash" because you can't see that someone might have a different situation than yourself is just about the shallowest thing I have ever heard. 
    @Sabinus15 - only on The Knot do people seem to get this bent over such an insignifigant etiquette breach. I would not want any of my friends or family to ever be homeless because they were hell bent on living their lives approved by Miss Manners. Nor would I want them to scrap their wedding plans because they signed their paperwork weeks before. That's ridiculous! 

    If someone were to attend a person's wedding and just sit their and stew and be miserable because they were so put off about some element or another of it, THEY'RE the rude one for wasting the host's money and they're also stupid as hell for wasting their own time being somewhere they disapprove of what's taking place. 
    Well, if they were made aware of such lies or elements ahead of time they could have chosen to opt out.

    After 6 years and 2 boys, finally tying the knot on October 27th, 2013!

  • LDay2014LDay2014 member
    500 Love Its 500 Comments First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited January 2014
    Sabinus15 said:
    A lot of people on here strongly criticize having two ceremonies for the reason of getting government/legal benefits sooner. But here's a hypothetical scenario: a couple is considering having a legal ceremony early and than a spiritual ceremony later after originally planning on having a regular ceremony and reception on the same day. Everything was paid for, invitations sent out. They would consider their wedding day to be the day of the spiritual ceremony and reception. Reasons for the two ceremonies would be: complications with timing of deployment, lack of work, and they were broke and the bride would literally be HOMELESS if they didn't didn't get married so she could live in the military housing. 

    Surely this is a situation in which the ends justifies breaking "etiquette." 

    Tell me it cannot be possible that Miss Manners or ANYONE would suggest that someone live on the streets for fear of making their guests sit through a 20 minute "fake" ceremony. Against etiquette or no.

    Does 20 minutes of discomfort for guests really outweigh weeks of homelessness for the bride?

     I don't think it does. And I think you should feel bad for judging people who have a PPD because what if they are in a similar situation? You don't know their financial/legal/spiritual situation. Okay, so you think it's bad etiquette. Fine. Don't recommend that people have one, but to really "throw the invitation in the trash" because you can't see that someone might have a different situation than yourself is just about the shallowest thing I have ever heard. 
    @Sabinus15 - only on The Knot do people seem to get this bent over such an insignifigant etiquette breach. I would not want any of my friends or family to ever be homeless because they were hell bent on living their lives approved by Miss Manners. Nor would I want them to scrap their wedding plans because they signed their paperwork weeks before. That's ridiculous! 

    If someone were to attend a person's wedding and just sit their and stew and be miserable because they were so put off about some element or another of it, THEY'RE the rude one for wasting the host's money and they're also stupid as hell for wasting their own time being somewhere they disapprove of what's taking place. 

    *STUCK IN BOX*
    Once they are legally married, the issue of homelessness is moot a second ceremony does not solidify their marital benefits.  Why can they not invite their friends and family to a celebration of their marriage? Why can't the be upfront with their guests that 'hey, we got married a few weeks ago and want you to come celebrate it with us at our reception on XXX date'?  The issue with a PPD is simply that people LIE to their guests about the fact they are already married.

    PrettyGirlLost
  • mrs4everhartmrs4everhart member
    1000 Comments 500 Love Its First Anniversary First Answer
    edited January 2014
    SKPM said:
    A lot of people on here strongly criticize having two ceremonies for the reason of getting government/legal benefits sooner. But here's a hypothetical scenario: a couple is considering having a legal ceremony early and than a spiritual ceremony later after originally planning on having a regular ceremony and reception on the same day. Everything was paid for, invitations sent out. They would consider their wedding day to be the day of the spiritual ceremony and reception. Reasons for the two ceremonies would be: complications with timing of deployment, lack of work, and they were broke and the bride would literally be HOMELESS if they didn't didn't get married so she could live in the military housing. 

    Surely this is a situation in which the ends justifies breaking "etiquette." 

    Tell me it cannot be possible that Miss Manners or ANYONE would suggest that someone live on the streets for fear of making their guests sit through a 20 minute "fake" ceremony. Against etiquette or no.

    Does 20 minutes of discomfort for guests really outweigh weeks of homelessness for the bride?

     I don't think it does. And I think you should feel bad for judging people who have a PPD because what if they are in a similar situation? You don't know their financial/legal/spiritual situation. Okay, so you think it's bad etiquette. Fine. Don't recommend that people have one, but to really "throw the invitation in the trash" because you can't see that someone might have a different situation than yourself is just about the shallowest thing I have ever heard. 
    If someone is that close to the brink of homelessness, why would she be throwing a party (wedding with reception and all) in the first place? Like PPs mentioned, start an emergency fund ASAP.
    Well, in the case of Sabinus15's scenario it sounds like the wedding was paid for already and a deployment situation came up. Perhaps if Plan A had taken place as planned one person would be living in military housing while the other was deployed. Maybe it was timed that way so the wife (I'm assuming) her lease ran out and she was primed to move (things packed, not back up plan) at the time of their wedding then something changed. Maybe there's no friends or family local that she could stay with until the wedding weeks away. Signing the license covers the living arrangement situation but the planned wedding is still paid for, the invitations still sent, her guests are already making or have made their travel plans, so Plan B goes in to effect. This is life. Why would anyone waste hundreds or thousands of dollars to figure out emergency housing and storage when a marriage license is inevitable anyway? The answer here is not "that's what being an adult is." No, being an adult is not equal to needlessly pissing money away because some antiquated etiquette ideals may not be met. Being an adult means knowing what your viable options are, weighing the possible outcomes as best as you can with the information at your disposal and making a decision you can live with. 
    Sabinus15
  • chibiyuichibiyui The Boring Part of MD member
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary 5 Answers
    lyndausvi said:

    I've said this over and over again.  I'm self-proclaimed "PPD-light".   I can objectively look at each situation on a case-by-case basis and  and will decide on my own if they are "worthy" (in my own opinion)  of the PPD.  I personally do not look at this as a one size fits all subject. I've said many times I've  flown to Austria for a PPD.  The key was I did that with full disclosure. 


    That said, there is no f'n reason to EVER lie about being married to family and friends in order for them to think of the PPD as the "real" wedding. NOT ONE SINGLE REASON.   Getting married is an adult decision.  That piece of paper comes with a lot of benefits that the LGBT community is fighting so hard to get.  It's insulting to claim it's not "real" then go out and reap the benefits the "only a piece of paper" gives you.  If it was "only a piece of paper" then there would be no need for the courthouse wedding.   You can't have it both ways.  

    So, please, do me  a favor, cut the crap and own up to your choices.  Have some respect for you family and friends.  No one likes being lied to or feeling duped.     These things ALWAYS get out.  Sure it might be years down the road, but they do get out.

    I agree with you. I remember a while ago someone posted a thread from the Bump where a poster had a JoP 4 weeks before their planned and paid wedding because she found out she was pregnant after a miscarriage. They didn't tell family because they didn't want to announce the pregancy till after the first trimester. Thats about the only decent reason I can think of for lying about a PPD.

    And I get that some people are still off put by that example. Thats fine, for me though its a very "look at all the fucks I give example"

    image



    Anniversary
  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    Sabinus15's scenario is so unlikely in it's silly to even use it as a good PPD excuse.    The most glaring being you have to be all kinds of stupid to pre-pay for a wedding when one of you maybe deployed.  






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
    NYCBruinaurorajanette
  • wrigleyvillewrigleyville Chicago member
    2500 Comments Fifth Anniversary 500 Love Its First Answer
    And for anyone who thinks people won't find out, they will. 

    I've had family members blab because they couldn't keep quiet, either before or after the wedding.

    I've found marriage licenses while doing research before family reunions (I keep the books updated). 

    I've seen friends' marriage licenses under the "County Court" section in the newspaper because some courts still report new marriages, business licenses, etc.

    So, yeah. You can say it won't happen to you, but are you really, truly 100% sure?

    NYCBruinPrettyGirlLost
  • JCbride2015JCbride2015 Dirty Jerz member
    5000 Comments 500 Love Its Second Anniversary First Answer
    And for anyone who thinks people won't find out, they will. 

    I've had family members blab because they couldn't keep quiet, either before or after the wedding.

    I've found marriage licenses while doing research before family reunions (I keep the books updated). 

    I've seen friends' marriage licenses under the "County Court" section in the newspaper because some courts still report new marriages, business licenses, etc.

    So, yeah. You can say it won't happen to you, but are you really, truly 100% sure?
    And even if you can pull it off and nobody finds out-- nobody ever sees your official wedding date on any kind of paperwork EVER, your whole lives.  Why would you want to start your marriage by lying to and deceiving your closest loved ones?
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    image

    "I'm not a rude bitch.  I'm ten rude bitches in a large coat."

    PrettyGirlLostjenniferurs
  • SKPM said:
    A lot of people on here strongly criticize having two ceremonies for the reason of getting government/legal benefits sooner. But here's a hypothetical scenario: a couple is considering having a legal ceremony early and than a spiritual ceremony later after originally planning on having a regular ceremony and reception on the same day. Everything was paid for, invitations sent out. They would consider their wedding day to be the day of the spiritual ceremony and reception. Reasons for the two ceremonies would be: complications with timing of deployment, lack of work, and they were broke and the bride would literally be HOMELESS if they didn't didn't get married so she could live in the military housing. 

    Surely this is a situation in which the ends justifies breaking "etiquette." 

    Tell me it cannot be possible that Miss Manners or ANYONE would suggest that someone live on the streets for fear of making their guests sit through a 20 minute "fake" ceremony. Against etiquette or no.

    Does 20 minutes of discomfort for guests really outweigh weeks of homelessness for the bride?

     I don't think it does. And I think you should feel bad for judging people who have a PPD because what if they are in a similar situation? You don't know their financial/legal/spiritual situation. Okay, so you think it's bad etiquette. Fine. Don't recommend that people have one, but to really "throw the invitation in the trash" because you can't see that someone might have a different situation than yourself is just about the shallowest thing I have ever heard. 
    If someone is that close to the brink of homelessness, why would she be throwing a party (wedding with reception and all) in the first place? Like PPs mentioned, start an emergency fund ASAP.
    Well, in the case of Sabinus15's scenario it sounds like the wedding was paid for already and a deployment situation came up. Perhaps if Plan A had taken place as planned one person would be living in military housing while the other was deployed. Maybe it was timed that way so the wife (I'm assuming) her lease ran out and she was primed to move (things packed, not back up plan) at the time of their wedding then something changed. Maybe there's no friends or family local that she could stay with until the wedding weeks away. Signing the license covers the living arrangement situation but the planned wedding is still paid for, the invitations still sent, her guests are already making or have made their travel plans, so Plan B goes in to effect. This is life. Why would anyone waste hundreds or thousands of dollars to figure out emergency housing and storage when a marriage license is inevitable anyway? The answer here is not "that's what being an adult is." No, being an adult is not equal to needlessly pissing money away because some antiquated etiquette ideals may not be met. Being an adult means knowing what your viable options are, weighing the possible outcomes as best as you can with the information at your disposal and making a decision you can live with. 
    What is so difficult about keeping everything as planned, except skipping the ceremony part? Or hell, have the ceremony, just tell people what it really is!

    After 6 years and 2 boys, finally tying the knot on October 27th, 2013!

    aurorajanettejenniferurs
  • PDKH said:
    You'll find that most vendors are very accommodating to military couples. Google up military clause. We have it writing with every single vendor for our wedding that we can shift our wedding to a different date if FI gets deployed. But you know - we like to think ahead and be responsible like that. 

    I went to a wedding in December that was originally scheduled for March, but the groom found out he was getting deployed in February. It can be done. 

    Also, reaping in benefits, housing, and food payed for by federal tax dollars while claiming to "not really be married" is one of the most scummiest things a military couple can do. 
    It seems most responsible, wise and prudent to make sure you have rescheduling options in your wedding contracts (or any legally binding situation where one person's presence is required but not possible). And I'm really glad to read that many vendors are accommodating to military couples, that would be really crappy otherwise. BUT, there are many, many people out there that may not qualify as, how to put this nicely, the brightest bulbs on the marquee. And that is how many people find themselves in weird, random, awkward situations like the scenario being discussed. I don't think the options should be (a) waste a ton of money staying a hotel for a month (or however long it was). Or (b) scrap your plans, you're screwed. There has GOT to be some middle ground for people who may have, however foolishly, ended up in a strange situation such as this. In that scenario I don't even think lying is an option unless the couple can convince people they convinced the U.S. Government to bend the rules for them. That would be interesting.

    I'm not sure how exactly how people pull off the whole claiming to not being married in a military housing situation. It's common knowledge couples must be married to live together on base, etc. I'm not sure how one hides in plain sight? I'm not sure how they pull it all off. So it makes me wonder how many of these couples actually DO tell their friends and families and no lie is ever actually told. 
    Sabinus15
  • kmmssg said:
    PDKH said:
    You'll find that most vendors are very accommodating to military couples. Google up military clause. We have it writing with every single vendor for our wedding that we can shift our wedding to a different date if FI gets deployed. But you know - we like to think ahead and be responsible like that. 

    I went to a wedding in December that was originally scheduled for March, but the groom found out he was getting deployed in February. It can be done. 

    Also, reaping in benefits, housing, and food payed for by federal tax dollars while claiming to "not really be married" is one of the most scummiest things a military couple can do. 
    Oh, the military clause.  What a life saver.  My DD is marrying a military man in June - you better believe it is in every contract.

    My niece married a guy in the Army 2 1/2 hears ago.  Michigan is NOT crawling with military people around every corner as we don't have a single active duty post here.  If you are here, you are on the economy unless you landed one of the handful of military housing billets over at Selfridge Air National Guard Base.  When I told BIL to get the clause in their contracts he thought I was nuts.  Well, they had to move the wedding from November to September because his deployment to Afghanistan was cancelled and he was going to Korea for a year unaccompanied in October.  Saved their butts.

    I am still trying to figure out the homeless thing Sabinius speaks of.  If she would be homeless because he deployed then that would lead me to believe they lived together.  If he could afford the apartment prior to deployment, he can afford it during.  If you are in a war zone your pay is tax free and you now have a LOT more cash in hand.  Imagine how much larger your check would be if you weren't paying federal income tax.  If they were living together and there is more cash coming in on his end, I am not seeing the emergency of the homelessness. The way I read it, what it sounded like to me was that perhaps they didn't live together yet and planned on doing so after they got married. That they timed things to where (presumably) she was moving from her current situation (apartment lease ended, dorm closed, who knows) and that moving the wedding would catch her in-between her last home and the home she was to share with her husband. I totally agree not having contingency plans in place when the government can tell you to change your plans on short notice is ill-conceived and poorly planned, but I imagine it happens to people more often than it should. 

    If they weren't living together, then why would his deployment make her homeless?  She would already have a place of her own.

    Like Lynda - I am "lite" on this topic.  I attended 4 PPDs that resulted from quick deployments.  They were all up front with their guests, the attendance rate was close to 100% at most of them, and everyone was glad to see our buddy home safe and sound.  

    You tell me what is going on and let me make up my own mind - no problem.  You LIE to me and get me to spend a lot of money on a DW for a fake wedding, we are done.

    Sabinus15
  • PDKH said:
    You'll find that most vendors are very accommodating to military couples. Google up military clause. We have it writing with every single vendor for our wedding that we can shift our wedding to a different date if FI gets deployed. But you know - we like to think ahead and be responsible like that. 

    I went to a wedding in December that was originally scheduled for March, but the groom found out he was getting deployed in February. It can be done. 

    Also, reaping in benefits, housing, and food payed for by federal tax dollars while claiming to "not really be married" is one of the most scummiest things a military couple can do. 
    It seems most responsible, wise and prudent to make sure you have rescheduling options in your wedding contracts (or any legally binding situation where one person's presence is required but not possible). And I'm really glad to read that many vendors are accommodating to military couples, that would be really crappy otherwise. BUT, there are many, many people out there that may not qualify as, how to put this nicely, the brightest bulbs on the marquee. And that is how many people find themselves in weird, random, awkward situations like the scenario being discussed. I don't think the options should be (a) waste a ton of money staying a hotel for a month (or however long it was). Or (b) scrap your plans, you're screwed. There has GOT to be some middle ground for people who may have, however foolishly, ended up in a strange situation such as this. In that scenario I don't even think lying is an option unless the couple can convince people they convinced the U.S. Government to bend the rules for them. That would be interesting.

    I'm not sure how exactly how people pull off the whole claiming to not being married in a military housing situation. It's common knowledge couples must be married to live together on base, etc. I'm not sure how one hides in plain sight? I'm not sure how they pull it all off. So it makes me wonder how many of these couples actually DO tell their friends and families and no lie is ever actually told. 
    There IS an option, though. Don't pretend to get married after you have already done so. Ta fucking da. The party is fine and dandy as long as it's not attached to a playacted wedding ceremony.

    You just totally shot yourself in the foot. How is that situation any different than yours? It's not. Because you ARE LYING!

    After 6 years and 2 boys, finally tying the knot on October 27th, 2013!

    KeptInStitches
  • acove2006 said:
    PDKH said:
    You'll find that most vendors are very accommodating to military couples. Google up military clause. We have it writing with every single vendor for our wedding that we can shift our wedding to a different date if FI gets deployed. But you know - we like to think ahead and be responsible like that. 

    I went to a wedding in December that was originally scheduled for March, but the groom found out he was getting deployed in February. It can be done. 

    Also, reaping in benefits, housing, and food payed for by federal tax dollars while claiming to "not really be married" is one of the most scummiest things a military couple can do. 
    It seems most responsible, wise and prudent to make sure you have rescheduling options in your wedding contracts (or any legally binding situation where one person's presence is required but not possible). And I'm really glad to read that many vendors are accommodating to military couples, that would be really crappy otherwise. BUT, there are many, many people out there that may not qualify as, how to put this nicely, the brightest bulbs on the marquee. And that is how many people find themselves in weird, random, awkward situations like the scenario being discussed. I don't think the options should be (a) waste a ton of money staying a hotel for a month (or however long it was). Or (b) scrap your plans, you're screwed. There has GOT to be some middle ground for people who may have, however foolishly, ended up in a strange situation such as this. In that scenario I don't even think lying is an option unless the couple can convince people they convinced the U.S. Government to bend the rules for them. That would be interesting.

    I'm not sure how exactly how people pull off the whole claiming to not being married in a military housing situation. It's common knowledge couples must be married to live together on base, etc. I'm not sure how one hides in plain sight? I'm not sure how they pull it all off. So it makes me wonder how many of these couples actually DO tell their friends and families and no lie is ever actually told. 
    There IS an option, though. Don't pretend to get married after you have already done so. Ta fucking da. The party is fine and dandy as long as it's not attached to a playacted wedding ceremony.

    You just totally shot yourself in the foot. How is that situation any different than yours? It's not. Because you ARE LYING!
    I've shot myself nowhere. These situations are much different. In our specific situation we are omitting one (in our opinion) minor detail to some individuals, who may or may not RSVP they are in fact coming to our wedding. Nothing in our outward appearance or living situation changes, one way or the other. 

    If someone in the above mentioned scenario succeeded in convincing their friends and family they managed to persuade the United States government and it's military's to alter long standing policies to fit their personal needs, I'd say an epic whopper would have to be told. And the people who have been convinced naive, indeed. 

    My point was in the military scenario we were discussing, and in general, it would seem rather difficult to convince anyone you're not already married if you're living together on base since the military generally poo-poos that sort of thing. I would assume most of the couples that applies to would have to be fairly transparent as their living situation would speak for itself, therefore anyone attending a later ceremony would already know and would be approving of the couple's situation, however silently, by their attendance. 
    dwhereicome
  • lyndausvi said:
    I forgot say in an earlier reply that even if the legal wedding is out in the open I really side-eye people claiming it wasn't "real" or it's "only a piece of paper" or other similar ridiculous claims.   

    Don't get me wrong I totally see how someone would feel their PPD religious ceremony is as important as the legal one to them emotionally, but if it was more important or considered the "real" one then you would not have had the legal one first.  

     It's like some people are embarrassed  that they are in that situation of having to get married earlier than planned that they go into denial and convince themselves it's not really important.  When we all know if it wasn't important it would have never been done.

    To the bold: I'm just curious why you'd attend then? Why wouldn't you just keep your judgy pants at home and decline the invite altogether? I don't understand people who waste their own time, and other people's money, attending any event they are in clear disagreement with. I've had friend enter in to marriages I didn't support. I stayed home. 
    perdonami
  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    lyndausvi said:
    I forgot say in an earlier reply that even if the legal wedding is out in the open I really side-eye people claiming it wasn't "real" or it's "only a piece of paper" or other similar ridiculous claims.   

    Don't get me wrong I totally see how someone would feel their PPD religious ceremony is as important as the legal one to them emotionally, but if it was more important or considered the "real" one then you would not have had the legal one first.  

     It's like some people are embarrassed  that they are in that situation of having to get married earlier than planned that they go into denial and convince themselves it's not really important.  When we all know if it wasn't important it would have never been done.

    To the bold: I'm just curious why you'd attend then? Why wouldn't you just keep your judgy pants at home and decline the invite altogether? I don't understand people who waste their own time, and other people's money, attending any event they are in clear disagreement with. I've had friend enter in to marriages I didn't support. I stayed home. 
    Way to bold only part of my statement.  

    The PPD's I've attend were not only people who didn't lie to us about the legal ceremony they also didn't go around pretending the legal ceremony was nothing more than a piece of paper and the PPD was their "real" wedding.   

    I don't have respect for people who either lie or claim the legal ceremony was nothing more than a piece of paper and the PPD is their "real" wedding.   If in the future I was invited to such a wedding I more than likely would decline  To date I've not be invite to such a wedding . I seriously doubt I would ever be invited to one in the future either.  I just don't know people in real life that think that way.






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
    WildMageletPrettyGirlLostgrumbledorejenniferurs
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards