Legally Married but PPD Wedding Later Complication - They are the same day.

kgd7357

@photokitty

I was actually thinking about doing it that way too. Or just do all the paperwork the next morning instead. When do people usually do the paper work anyway? I know for Jewish ceremonies (I grew up Jewish) you sign everything before hand anyway. The ceremony is really just for the religious blessings.

freebread03

I have a friend who is an ordained minister in VA-he has performed multiple weddings (and they were legal too!) in DC...I don't think the process was expensive or complicated. Have you done a lot of research? Is it a County (ie Arlington) or state (ie VA) thing?

deannagirly

I'm not exactly sure what kind of wedding you are having, but I wouldn't mind driving for 20-30 min if it meant I got to see both aspects of the wedding. If you are worried about the traffic from driving from one area to another, why not hire some sort of transportation to transport your guests from the ceremony to the reception, then back to where all their cars are parked once it is over? They wouldn't be required to use your transportation, but if you could get like a tour bus or something. That way they wouldn't have to deal with the traffic, just enjoy the ride. Of course, this only works for smaller-like weddings. If you're having 200+ people it probably wouldn't work, but 50 people? It could be a possibility.

syoun1nj

If you want your FFIL to marry you in VA, you can also hire an officiant to witness the ceremony in front of your guests and she'll perform the legal ceremony when the license is signed. Ours offered us this when we thought we wanted a friend to do our ceremony, but we ended up just having her do our ceremony, and she was wonderful. As a civil celebrant, the fee was $50 + 50 cents a mile/travel (from Herndon). $100 for the day. Not sure how that compares to the cost of getting your FFIL a one-day ordainment in VA.

Liatris2010

Am I the only one who doesn't see the distinction between the vows and the legal part? You are vowing to get married, that is what makes it legal. In my state, they say "do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband ......blah, blah", you say "I do" and you have exchanged wedding vows and you are married. There is no legally getting married and then making a special set of promises that counts as a wedding. As for the paperwork, I guess it differs by state, but we didn't sign anything. Our witnesses and officiant signed, it wasn't part of the ceremony at all.

I think you should wear your white dress to the courthouse and have FFIL marry you and then go to the reception and party. If those guests missed the actual wedding, I'm sure they'll be a bit disappointed, but reenacting it for them isn't going to be the same, so just skip the second ceremony.

crunchymamaof2

Liatris2010 said:

Am I the only one who doesn't see the distinction between the vows and the legal part? You are vowing to get married, that is what makes it legal. In my state, they say "do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband ......blah, blah", you say "I do" and you have exchanged wedding vows and you are married. There is no legally getting married and then making a special set of promises that counts as a wedding. As for the paperwork, I guess it differs by state, but we didn't sign anything. Our witnesses and officiant signed, it wasn't part of the ceremony at all.

I think you should wear your white dress to the courthouse and have FFIL marry you and then go to the reception and party. If those guests missed the actual wedding, I'm sure they'll be a bit disappointed, but reenacting it for them isn't going to be the same, so just skip the second ceremony.

You are amazing and make perfect sense. I wish more people listen to you.

cowgirl8238

Personally I would rather travel to attend both the ceremony and reception then miss the vows.  That is my favroite part.  I think the pp's have given some good advice, and have provided a range of options for you.  GL!

kgd7357

I agree. Thanks for the ideas! I think it's more special for my FFIL to do the ceremony where he is a judge, so I'm leaning towards splitting them up and having people travel. We'll just explain the reasoning in the program. There are some beautiful park along the waterfront just over the river, which would keep the commute down to 15 minutes or so.

phira

That definitely sounds like it'll work just fine. A lot of people are used to traveling from a place of worship (or from city hall) to a reception venue, so a 15 minute trip is totally acceptable.

Jen4948

kgd7357 said:

I agree. Thanks for the ideas! I think it's more special for my FFIL to do the ceremony where he is a judge, so I'm leaning towards splitting them up and having people travel. We'll just explain the reasoning in the program. There are some beautiful park along the waterfront just over the river, which would keep the commute down to 15 minutes or so.

I like this idea.  Best wishes!

GrrArgh

I'll probably get flamed for this but if it helps, we are having a religious ceremony early afternoon as we feel is necessary to be true to our faith and a ring ceremony that evening. Everyone is aware of it, there will be no vows, my (then)husband and I will walk in together vs being escorted by my father, a wedding march will not be played but a procession will occur by my friends and family in pretty dresses (they will have been my bridesmaids and his groomsmen earlier in the day) and yes I'll be in a fluffy white dress. The entire "ceremony" is simply to exchange rings as that is not a part of our religious ceremony, the exchange is very short sweet and too the point (and is very very common practice in our church) leading directly into a fairly typical reception party. That is all to say, I think it is fine to do a ring exchange but would not recreate the wedding, rather I would honor the commitment made that day and focus more on a general celebration of love. Again it's a little different because ours is the norm in our circles, but I don't see why you could not do something similar in your situation. 

mrs4everhart

Let me give you a different opinion: as a wedding guest I am not interested when/where a couple fulfills their legal obligation to the municipality in which they live and signs the dotted line. I'm interested in the wedding ceremony where the couple actually exchanges vows, rings, etc. It can be religious in nature or not. If I were told after the fact that a couple raised their right hands, filled out some paperwork and paid their licensing fees prior to their formal ceremony I wouldn't care a bit. Marriage is a relative concept as far as I'm concerned. Fulfilling the government's demands is the least of it in my opinion. Do what makes the most sense for yourselves, your budget, your families and friends. 

OliveOilsMom

STBMrsEverhart said:

Let me give you a different opinion: as a wedding guest I am not interested when/where a couple fulfills their legal obligation to the municipality in which they live and signs the dotted line. I'm interested in the wedding ceremony where the couple actually exchanges vows, rings, etc. It can be religious in nature or not. If I were told after the fact that a couple raised their right hands, filled out some paperwork and paid their licensing fees prior to their formal ceremony I wouldn't care a bit. Marriage is a relative concept as far as I'm concerned. Fulfilling the government's demands is the least of it in my opinion. Do what makes the most sense for yourselves, your budget, your families and friends. 

But in the US, you can do both at the same time.  You can have the legally binding and religious ceremony all at once.  When I applied for my marriage license, H & I raised our right hands and swore to what they asked us.  But that did not make us married!  We didn't become legally or religiously married until our ceremony occurred and the officiant and witnesses signed our license.

And when a couple gets legally married first, why do you want to watch a fake ceremony later?  They are obviously already married so their words are basically meaningless.

You're new here.  I suggest lurking some more.  Maybe read the sticky at the top of the page related to PPD.

crunchymamaof2

STBMrsEverhart said:

Let me give you a different opinion: as a wedding guest I am not interested when/where a couple fulfills their legal obligation to the municipality in which they live and signs the dotted line. I'm interested in the wedding ceremony where the couple actually exchanges vows, rings, etc. It can be religious in nature or not. If I were told after the fact that a couple raised their right hands, filled out some paperwork and paid their licensing fees prior to their formal ceremony I wouldn't care a bit. Marriage is a relative concept as far as I'm concerned. Fulfilling the government's demands is the least of it in my opinion. Do what makes the most sense for yourselves, your budget, your families and friends. 

Its fine that you personally wouldn't get offended. But a fake wedding after a couple is already married is wrong, no matter how you slice it. Check out this sticky

mrs4everhart

I checked out the sticky. I'm still not in agreement in the least. Because someone opines something on the internet does not make it so. I'm still in the camp of "who cares when exactly anyone makes it 'legal"! Expecting gifts twice would make it gift grabby. What if the couple pays for the entire deal themselves and asks that guests NOT bring gifts? At that point, who cares what anyone calls it - it's a party with the trappings of a wedding, on someone else's dime. I'm not going to rush the alter after someone's church ceremony and demand to see the signed marriage license, how do I know it's "real"?! How will I sleep that night knowing I wasn't duped?! Like I said, marriage is a relative concept for me. According to the state I live in my FH and I have been together so long and meet all the other criteria all we have to do is refer to each other in public as "spouse" and we're "married." That's not what it takes in our opinion so we'll choose a different path. But since our state deems it so, should we scrap our wedding? 

Jen4948

STBMrsEverhart said:

I checked out the sticky. I'm still not in agreement in the least. Because someone opines something on the internet does not make it so. I'm still in the camp of "who cares when exactly anyone makes it 'legal"! Expecting gifts twice would make it gift grabby. What if the couple pays for the entire deal themselves and asks that guests NOT bring gifts? At that point, who cares what anyone calls it - it's a party with the trappings of a wedding, on someone else's dime. I'm not going to rush the alter after someone's church ceremony and demand to see the signed marriage license, how do I know it's "real"?! How will I sleep that night knowing I wasn't duped?! Like I said, marriage is a relative concept for me. According to the state I live in my FH and I have been together so long and meet all the other criteria all we have to do is refer to each other in public as "spouse" and we're "married." That's not what it takes in our opinion so we'll choose a different path. But since our state deems it so, should we scrap our wedding? 

Your personal disagreement with it doesn't change the fact that etiquette still prohibits it.  Etiquette is not based on anyone's personal disagreement with it-it is based on global, societal agreements and disagreements.  You are not entitled to breach etiquette just because you personally disagree with it, and doing so still labels you as rude.

Jen4948

STBMrsEverhart said:

I checked out the sticky. I'm still not in agreement in the least. Because someone opines something on the internet does not make it so. I'm still in the camp of "who cares when exactly anyone makes it 'legal"! Expecting gifts twice would make it gift grabby. What if the couple pays for the entire deal themselves and asks that guests NOT bring gifts? At that point, who cares what anyone calls it - it's a party with the trappings of a wedding, on someone else's dime. I'm not going to rush the alter after someone's church ceremony and demand to see the signed marriage license, how do I know it's "real"?! How will I sleep that night knowing I wasn't duped?! Like I said, marriage is a relative concept for me. According to the state I live in my FH and I have been together so long and meet all the other criteria all we have to do is refer to each other in public as "spouse" and we're "married." That's not what it takes in our opinion so we'll choose a different path. But since our state deems it so, should we scrap our wedding? 

Your personal disagreement with it doesn't change the fact that etiquette still prohibits it.  Etiquette is not based on anyone's personal disagreement with it-it is based on global, societal agreements and disagreements.  You are not entitled to breach etiquette just because you personally disagree with it, and doing so still labels you as rude.

APDSS22

STBMrsEverhart said:

I checked out the sticky. I'm still not in agreement in the least. Because someone opines something on the internet does not make it so. I'm still in the camp of "who cares when exactly anyone makes it 'legal"! Expecting gifts twice would make it gift grabby. What if the couple pays for the entire deal themselves and asks that guests NOT bring gifts? At that point, who cares what anyone calls it - it's a party with the trappings of a wedding, on someone else's dime. I'm not going to rush the alter after someone's church ceremony and demand to see the signed marriage license, how do I know it's "real"?! How will I sleep that night knowing I wasn't duped?! Like I said, marriage is a relative concept for me. According to the state I live in my FH and I have been together so long and meet all the other criteria all we have to do is refer to each other in public as "spouse" and we're "married." That's not what it takes in our opinion so we'll choose a different path. But since our state deems it so, should we scrap our wedding? 

This would be pertinent only if etiquette were a matter of personal opinion.  It is not.  Being a proper hostess is not a matter of opinion.  Just because one person (or even two or three) do not find a concept rude does not mean it suddenly is not rude.  It's fine that you have an opinion on PPDs, but your opinion does not align itself with etiquette and this would be the Etiquette board.  We are wary of encouraging impressionable young brides that things like PPDs are ok because one or two people are ok with them so we like to reiterate what proper etiquette says on the matter.

Dreamergirl8812

STBMrsEverhart said:

I checked out the sticky. I'm still not in agreement in the least. Because someone opines something on the internet does not make it so. I'm still in the camp of "who cares when exactly anyone makes it 'legal"! Expecting gifts twice would make it gift grabby. What if the couple pays for the entire deal themselves and asks that guests NOT bring gifts? At that point, who cares what anyone calls it - it's a party with the trappings of a wedding, on someone else's dime. I'm not going to rush the alter after someone's church ceremony and demand to see the signed marriage license, how do I know it's "real"?! How will I sleep that night knowing I wasn't duped?! Like I said, marriage is a relative concept for me. According to the state I live in my FH and I have been together so long and meet all the other criteria all we have to do is refer to each other in public as "spouse" and we're "married." That's not what it takes in our opinion so we'll choose a different path. But since our state deems it so, should we scrap our wedding? 

First highlighted: This is a perfect example that stuff on the internet is just crap.

Second: Why is legal in quotations? Do you not know what it means? Do you think it's some mystical half centaur half butterfly creature?

Third: Why is the word "real" confusing for you?

mrs4everhart

If I am to believe that the common accepted etiquette guidelines concerning symbolic ceremonies subsequent to legal document signings are (a) supposed to be named a smart ass thing like a Pretty Princess Day and (b) are wholly frowned upon I'd like to see documentation of this by an etiquette expert, as opposed to message boards on a wedding-related website. Otherwise, it's just conjecture and opinion as originally stated and I'll freely share mine. I can't imagine Emily Post ever using the term "Pretty Princess Day" because good manners and graciousness would dictate that it's not necessary to denigrate someone's idea or question prior to delivering an answer they may not want to hear. 

I placed the word "legal" in quotations because it is a matter of relativity, not literalism - as I mentioned, I could be legally common-wed if I so chose. That's not the route we chose to take, it doesn't make it any more, or any less legal. But since we meet all the criteria, should we now not have a symbolic ceremony?

The word real was quoted for the same reason - relativity - and that's where I will not agree with the rest of you. What I consider extremely real is clearly not the same as you all. My wedding will not be cheapened, lessened or less real because we take care of the paperwork before we leave for Mexico. Because it costs $30 in Colorado and about 20 minutes versus $300 plus, blood tests, and possibly hours of our time on vacation to be legally wed in Mexico - why would we waste the time? Why would our closest friends and family want that for us?! Because it would somehow change what they see and hear? Not at all. Nothing will be different from what they see and hear. In fact, at my first wedding the only five people to see the license get signed was myself, my ex, our two witnesses and the minister. I guess the other 150+ guests are still wondering if it was all real or if it was mythical, like a half centaur, half butterfly creature.....

Viczaesar

STBMrsEverhart said:

If I am to believe that the common accepted etiquette guidelines concerning symbolic ceremonies subsequent to legal document signings are (a) supposed to be named a smart ass thing like a Pretty Princess Day and (b) are wholly frowned upon I'd like to see documentation of this by an etiquette expert, as opposed to message boards on a wedding-related website. Otherwise, it's just conjecture and opinion as originally stated and I'll freely share mine. I can't imagine Emily Post ever using the term "Pretty Princess Day" because good manners and graciousness would dictate that it's not necessary to denigrate someone's idea or question prior to delivering an answer they may not want to hear. 

I placed the word "legal" in quotations because it is a matter of relativity, not literalism - as I mentioned, I could be legally common-wed if I so chose. That's not the route we chose to take, it doesn't make it any more, or any less legal. But since we meet all the criteria, should we now not have a symbolic ceremony?

The word real was quoted for the same reason - relativity - and that's where I will not agree with the rest of you. What I consider extremely real is clearly not the same as you all. My wedding will not be cheapened, lessened or less real because we take care of the paperwork before we leave for Mexico. Because it costs $30 in Colorado and about 20 minutes versus $300 plus, blood tests, and possibly hours of our time on vacation to be legally wed in Mexico - why would we waste the time? Why would our closest friends and family want that for us?! Because it would somehow change what they see and hear? Not at all. Nothing will be different from what they see and hear. In fact, at my first wedding the only five people to see the license get signed was myself, my ex, our two witnesses and the minister. I guess the other 150+ guests are still wondering if it was all real or if it was mythical, like a half centaur, half butterfly creature.....

Then pick up a Miss Manners book or write to her column.

Super shocker that you're having a fake wedding yourself.  I would never have guessed that's why you're defending the practice...

Jen4948

No.  "Symbolic ceremonies" do not make you married.

The purpose of marriage is to establish yourself as a couple socially and legally, not just in your own eyes.  And etiquette is for everyone, not just you.  Sometimes one has to do or not do things because the rules of etiquette or otherwise apply to EVERYONE.  Claiming that they don't apply to you because you're more special than anyone else or that it isn't "meaningful" for you comes off as entitled and rude. Sorry, but you brought this up on an etiquette board, and if etiquette doesn't support your position, we're going to say so-not tell you "it's your day, do whatever you want and what you think is best."

mrs4everhart

I didn't bring it up nor was I looking for advice, I was adding my two cents for the OP, which differs from all of yours. I guess everyone missed the point that since our state already considers us common-law, no matter what we do, it would still be considered "fake" if applying the made-up-on-The-Knot etiquette. We're comfortable in our decision, I was hoping to provide the same comfort to the OP. There will be nothing fake about or wedding. There would be nothing fake about the OP's should she do as she's considering. We won't be changing anything about about our union, it will be perfect just the way it's going to be and we can't wait to hit the beach. The OP should be given the same opportunity. I'd love to debate this in to the wee hours of the morning but truly, there's really nothing left to say. Good luck with your weddings, however you see fit to host them!

APDSS22

STBMrsEverhart said:

I didn't bring it up nor was I looking for advice, I was adding my two cents for the OP, which differs from all of yours. I guess everyone missed the point that since our state already considers us common-law, no matter what we do, it would still be considered "fake" if applying the made-up-on-The-Knot etiquette. We're comfortable in our decision, I was hoping to provide the same comfort to the OP. There will be nothing fake about or wedding. There would be nothing fake about the OP's should she do as she's considering. We won't be changing anything about about our union, it will be perfect just the way it's going to be and we can't wait to hit the beach. The OP should be given the same opportunity. I'd love to debate this in to the wee hours of the morning but truly, there's really nothing left to say. Good luck with your weddings, however you see fit to host them!

Part of the requirement to be considered common law married by the state of Colorado is to have lived together for at least 24 hours continuous (I'm assuming you have done this and that's why you say you meet the requirements) and the other is that you have to hold yourselves as a married couple.  Calling each other married or man and wife socially in other words.

Feel free to state your opinion if you want.  Since this is an Etiquette board, commonly held etiquette consensus is generally supported here.  Since some brides are reading this and very impressionable, most of the regular posters here like to state the general etiquette consensus after posters post something disagreeing with it (mostly their personal opinion) so that brides know that some of their guests might find these things rude.  (They might do that in a very blunt manner, yes.)  One person finding something non-offensive will not make it suddenly agreeable to everyone because etiquette is not dependent on a single person's opinion, but something much larger than that.

Also, a lot of posters only suggested the OP had the option to have her FFIL ordained in VA or simply do the ceremony with everyone in DC and then the reception in VA if it wasn't too far a drive.  They suggested she not have a ceremony that no one got invited to in DC then fake a ceremony later in VA in front of all her guests.  Getting married then pretending to get married again would be fake, KWIM?

crunchymamaof2

I can't think of one good reason (excluding death and grave illness perhaps, but even then...) that a re-do "wedding" is necessary, except that the couple wants attention. If getting married in Mexico is just soooooooooo difficult and expensive, why are you doing it? You're CHOOSING to get married in Mexico, so you deal with the consequences of that. Can't afford it? Don't do it.

If having friends and family witness your marriage was that important to a couple then they should wait or do what it takes to make that happen. Doesn't have to cost a lot of money either. Deployments, insurance reasons, etc are not a reason to get married then have a fake wedding later. As an adult you must weigh the pros and cons. Benefits now or benefits + traditional wedding later. You don't get benefits now and a wedding later. A wedding, by definition, is when two people become wed. So by getting married in Colorado (or however a couple does it) that becomes your wedding. Then, when Mexico (or the re-do "wedding"), happens, you'll already be man and wife. You can't be pronounced man and wife for a second time, unless a divorce occurred in between.

I'm sure your friends and family have told you they're fine with the PPD plan. But you have no way of knowing how they truly feel (unless they come here and vent about it). They most likely don't want to hurt your feelings or be the bad guy. So of course they'll say its okay! But I'd be willing to bet money that your plan will offend at least a couple of your guests.

Oh and by telling people you don't want gifts you're actually sending the message that gifts were expected. So go ahead and do whatever you're planning, since you will anyways, but don't give incorrect etiquette advice on an etiquette board. Etiquette = treating your guests kindly and with respect. So how is lying to them or asking them to witness a fake ceremony treating them with respect? It's not- it's just something YOU want to do and your wants obviously come before anyone else.

OliveOilsMom

STBMrsEverhart said:

If I am to believe that the common accepted etiquette guidelines concerning symbolic ceremonies subsequent to legal document signings are (a) supposed to be named a smart ass thing like a Pretty Princess Day and (b) are wholly frowned upon I'd like to see documentation of this by an etiquette expert, as opposed to message boards on a wedding-related website. Otherwise, it's just conjecture and opinion as originally stated and I'll freely share mine. I can't imagine Emily Post ever using the term "Pretty Princess Day" because good manners and graciousness would dictate that it's not necessary to denigrate someone's idea or question prior to delivering an answer they may not want to hear. 

I placed the word "legal" in quotations because it is a matter of relativity, not literalism - as I mentioned, I could be legally common-wed if I so chose. That's not the route we chose to take, it doesn't make it any more, or any less legal. But since we meet all the criteria, should we now not have a symbolic ceremony?

The word real was quoted for the same reason - relativity - and that's where I will not agree with the rest of you. What I consider extremely real is clearly not the same as you all. My wedding will not be cheapened, lessened or less real because we take care of the paperwork before we leave for Mexico. Because it costs $30 in Colorado and about 20 minutes versus $300 plus, blood tests, and possibly hours of our time on vacation to be legally wed in Mexico - why would we waste the time? Why would our closest friends and family want that for us?! Because it would somehow change what they see and hear? Not at all. Nothing will be different from what they see and hear. In fact, at my first wedding the only five people to see the license get signed was myself, my ex, our two witnesses and the minister. I guess the other 150+ guests are still wondering if it was all real or if it was mythical, like a half centaur, half butterfly creature.....

I'm glad to hear that you are having your friends and family spends thousands of dollars on a trip to Mexico to watch you reenact your wedding.  I guess it makes your monetary savings all worth their cost!

melbelleup

kgd7357 said:

I agree. Thanks for the ideas! I think it's more special for my FFIL to do the ceremony where he is a judge, so I'm leaning towards splitting them up and having people travel. We'll just explain the reasoning in the program. There are some beautiful park along the waterfront just over the river, which would keep the commute down to 15 minutes or so.

Just so you know, depending on the time of your wedding... 15 minutes in DC is like 30-45 minutes. Been there. done that. neverrrrr going through DC to get to Pitts again.

kgd7357

@melbelleup

I live in DC, so I'm pretty familiar with the traffic. I'm looking at places that avoid actually going through the city and are just off 295/395, so it's just a quick pop over the river. I'm leaning towards seeing if the Yards Park by the Nats Stadium, Fort McNair, or the Navy Yard will let me do it. Luckily the Nats play in Chicago that day, which would have meant horrible traffic complications for a Saturday afternoon. The reception is 1 mile off 395 on the VA side. We'd leave at least 30 min for travel anyway in case people want to drop off cars at the hotel (en route) and grab a cab instead.

melbelleup

kgd7357 said:

@melbelleup

I live in DC, so I'm pretty familiar with the traffic. I'm looking at places that avoid actually going through the city and are just off 295/395, so it's just a quick pop over the river. I'm leaning towards seeing if the Yards Park by the Nats Stadium, Fort McNair, or the Navy Yard will let me do it. Luckily the Nats play in Chicago that day, which would have meant horrible traffic complications for a Saturday afternoon. The reception is 1 mile off 395 on the VA side. We'd leave at least 30 min for travel anyway in case people want to drop off cars at the hotel (en route) and grab a cab instead.

Great Glad you have a good thought process on it

mrs4everhart

@TheFutureMrsRohlman22 - you're the ONLY one that has had the good sense to admit publicly that what is held as the gospel truth on this (and I assume other subjects) on TK is the consensus of opinions. There's NO WAY Emily Post (or any of her contemporaries) would have lowered herself to calling something a Pretty Princess Day. 

My FH and I do not HAVE to get married in Mexico, that's where we want to get married. No one we are friends with or are related to want us to spend literally 10 times the fees on a marriage license. And trust me, my mother who has been in healthcare for over 35 years, wants neither of us getting blood drawn in a 3rd world country. Not for any reason!!! 

If our friends and family are offended, I recommend they stay home. It's super easy to check "decline" on an RSVP and NOT book a trip to Mexico! We're super chill, we won't be offended. Requesting gifts not be given has nothing to do with the order we're signing our license then having a wedding ceremony and everything to do with the fact that it's my second wedding and we've lived together for 7 years - there's nothing we need or want our guests to give us. We'd like our friends and family to participate in an awesome trip, which we know will cost them plenty if they'd like to go. Accepting gifts (over and above their venturing out of the country) would just be obnoxious. Pretending as if gift-giving when attending a wedding isn't common practice is just stupid and childish. 

I'm just wondering what TK etiquette consensus is on having your own progeny at your own wedding (and I'm not even talking second or more weddings)? Or non-virgins wearing white, or a veil?  Or, bringing fake dicks out in public at bachelorettes parties? I could go on and on and on and on. Things change with time and circumstance. Personally, I think seeing a pregnant chick in a wedding gown is the single most ridiculous thing I can imagine. But if she cares enough about me to invite me and I care enough to go, I'll enjoy her hospitality as it is offered. 

Lastly, I'm not the least bit worried about not providing my guests graciousness and hospitality. This is FAR from FH's and mine's first foray in hosting anything. One thing for sure is we host killer parties! Now that I've covered every item directed toward me personally, versus the OP or anyone who would dare to throw one of these so-called "PPD's" I think I'm good :-)