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

PrettyGirlLost · October 2013

bubbles053009 said:

Also @STBMrsEverhart, the pure fact that you can't stand our government but want to take advantage of the legal benefits of getting married sickens me. It is people like you who irritate me and make me thankful that my parents brought me up right.

FTR, my BF's parents immigrated here from the Azores islands in the 70s because this country was a better place for them to live. Even though they could get his father better benefits and such if he was a citizen, rather than a permanent alien, by getting remarried here, they haven't. You know why? Because they view being married as being with someone you love and care about more than just a business transaction. Which referring it to that, btw, is essentially tossing it back to how it was centuries ago when your father would trade your hand in marriage for some fucking goats or cows or whatever.

Please just go...

You rock!

mrs4everhart · October 2013

This has taken up way too much of my time at this point. I cannot seriously consider quoting. requoting, etc. a decent use of my time. I've explained, then re-explained, for pages and really, I'm not sure why. Enjoy your planning, or your marriages, or whatever you're doing. We will certainly do the same. I'd apologize if I were sorry. I'm not. Dunzo!

PrettyGirlLost · October 2013

bubbles053009 said:

@PrettyGirlLost Thank you! I hate when people say shit like that and then go around and take advantage of the benefits.

My mother is not a US citizen- she's a legal alien, or whatever the term is- and she gets pissed off when Americans spout off this nonsense as well. Her response to them is pretty much "GTFO, then."

It's disrespectful to everyone who has fought and died for this country, it's disrespectful to everyone who struggled to immigrate to this country then struggled further to survive here, it's disrespectful to everyone who is still trying to immigrate here, and it is just sickening when you consider all of the people who are stuck in hopeless, violent, impoverished situations worldwide with no prayer of being able to leave.

PrettyGirlLost · October 2013

STBMrsEverhart said:

This has taken up way too much of my time at this point. I cannot seriously consider quoting. requoting, etc. a decent use of my time. I've explained, then re-explained, for pages and really, I'm not sure why. Enjoy your planning, or your marriages, or whatever you're doing. We will certainly do the same. I'd apologize if I were sorry. I'm not. Dunzo!

Isn't this the 2nd time you have told us you were done with this thread? Promises, promises. . .

Jen4948 · October 2013

STBMrsEverhart said:

This has taken up way too much of my time at this point. I cannot seriously consider quoting. requoting, etc. a decent use of my time. I've explained, then re-explained, for pages and really, I'm not sure why. Enjoy your planning, or your marriages, or whatever you're doing. We will certainly do the same. I'd apologize if I were sorry. I'm not. Dunzo!

Good riddance.

QueerFemme · October 2013

STBMrsEverhart said:

This has taken up way too much of my time at this point. I cannot seriously consider quoting. requoting, etc. a decent use of my time. I've explained, then re-explained, for pages and really, I'm not sure why. Enjoy your planning, or your marriages, or whatever you're doing. We will certainly do the same. I'd apologize if I were sorry. I'm not. Dunzo!

You might want to stop hanging out on an etiquette board, since you clearly have none.

grumbledore · October 2013

STBMrsEverhart said:

This has taken up way too much of my time at this point. I cannot seriously consider quoting. requoting, etc. a decent use of my time. I've explained, then re-explained, for pages and really, I'm not sure why. Enjoy your planning, or your marriages, or whatever you're doing. We will certainly do the same. I'd apologize if I were sorry. I'm not. Dunzo!

Your attitude sucks. And you're clearly just trying to stir up drama for your own amusement.

@QueerFemme has the right of it. What you've said here is offensive, short-sided and frankly just shitty. Marriage is not a business transaction. It's not as insignificant as a parking ticket. And if you really think that, I can't imagine yours will last.

mimiphin · October 2013

QueerFemme said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

Maggie0829 said:

I think it is absolutely horrible that your Mom considers the day that you become legally married to your FI as a "business transaction". Disgusting. And now I know where you get this entitled and self-absorbed attitude from.
I'm sorry to have to subject you to such horrors. The only people I have ever known who seem to have such an emotional attachment to a marriage license, an insignificant government document (in the opinions of those that matter most us) hang out right here on TK. I can barely stomach our government let alone care about their classification of my relationship. Again, those closest to us feel the same (about both the government and the (in)significance of marriage licenses). If that is self-absorbed and entitled, so be it. I don't consider it either of those things. In fact, I don't consider it much at all. To be brutally honest, I consider it on the same level as paying a parking ticket (same building, same parking nightmare, about the same amount of money). Only wait, the city and county of Denver actually made paying parking tickets easy to pay online, so I think we know which one we think more highly of. A marriage license is a way for a municipality to make more money. A way to make sure they get their hooks in good and deep. So deep in fact, they still make money if the relationship dissolves!! If you're emotionally attached to that, be my guest. If your marriage license is what makes you feel married than excellent, who am I to judge? I could go so far as to say that makes me sad for you because you're missing so much of the point but I'm not emotionally invested in you or your relationship - and you'll come to figure it all out on your own eventually.

From someone who was denied a marriage license for a VERY long time, let me just tell you how totally fucking offensive the bolded statements are.

Referring to the legal part of getting married in the same context as a parking ticket is totally rude and just goes to show that YOU are the one missing the point. Getting married, when you have the legal right to do so, IS the point. The pretty white dress and big party and gift registry is "extra".

QueerFemme Let me just say that I really do admire you and what you have been through.

STBMrsEverhart The white dress, party and everything else is extra, I couldn't care less about that part. What I want is to be a wife, have a husband and have that damn piece of paper saying so!
And really?? So a JOP isn't a wedding since "we are missing so much of the point" and you are insinuating that we will all have PPD's as we will "come to figure it all out on your own eventually"

happyfor25 · October 2013

STBMrsEverhart said: PrettyGirlLost said: PrettyGirlLost said: STBMrsEverhart said: Obamacare (god help us all) only eliminates the refusal to insure an individual with pre-existing conditions. It does not regulate anything regarding the outrageous premiums a person with pre-existing conditions will pay. Why would we pay MORE money for his health insurance on a lesser quality plan? To avoid some girls on the Internet likening our wedding to some Disney-esque nonsense? Neither of us are that sensitive. And to be crystal clear, I had already stated we decided to file our license ahead of our trip prior to the medical issues even arising in the thread you're parsing from. No one involved wants us to spend 10 times or more for the same legal outcome. Except you all, who fortunately aren't making decisions regarding our health plans, finances or nuptials. Stop acting so entitled and so dense.

We don't want you to spend any amount of money on your PPD in Mexico or the "at home" reception to the PPD. We aren't advocating that you have either event because you will already be married, and therefore both your Mexican PPD and this reception will be in bad taste!!

I'm sorry that your future husband is ill, and I understand that you both need to get him the optimal health insurance, and I am not a fan of Obamacare either. But once you are legally married you are married and acting like you are not and having redo or reenactment events is tacky.
I don't think it's such a good idea for anyone who clearly lacks reading comprehension such as yourself to call anyone else dense. The sentence you highlighted refers to the fact that getting legally married in Mexico, for ten times the price (without first signing our license here), is the route you all would have us take (not the route we are taking). As for my acting entitled - the only thing I am entitled to is spending my money as I see fit. We have made the best, most informed choices for our household. We are not forcing anyone else's participation and will not be upset by anyone's lack thereof. We are choosing to host a wedding in Mexico and inviting a small group of family and friends. We are certainly entitled to do so. And they are entitled to decline. Or, they're welcome to come share an awesome few days in the sun, on the beach, relaxing, eating, drinking, exploring, dancing the nights away with family and friends. Or they can trouble themselves with when and where we signed our marriage certificate first and the real-life reasons we chose to. It's all really simple. Actually my reading comprehension skills are just fine. I think you are choosing not to get what is being said. You said you are getting married in the US 1st bc it is very expensive to do so in Mexico, right? Therefore, your marriage and wedding are being held in the US. When you fly off to Mexico you are already a wife, whether or not you refer to yourself as one or not. So you will be having a PPD in Mexico. That's the part we think is rude and tacky, the Mexican PPD. And no one is saying they expect you to move your actual wedding there. We are trying to get you to understand that despite your rationalization, you are not getting married in Mexico. You will already be married. And hopefully you will be up front with your guests so they know they aren't attending an actual wedding.

ETA: Fixed goofy mobile quoting issues. Also, Mrs.Everhart did you ever say if you were letting your guests know up front that you will already be married prior to the trip to Mexico? I don't recall if you said.
I didn't say. Some will know, some won't. The whole idea of taking care of the paperwork in CO first was actually my Mom's, so obviously it isn't an issue for family. She's never referred to it as anything but a business transaction, so it's evident we're on the same page. Ditto the few others that know. We wouldn't have reason to discuss our health insurance or tax filing status with the rest so there's no reason to discuss it with them. Obviously, we as well think of it only as a business decision. Apparently the way we're going about things is so popular that most of the resorts we looked in to (including the one we went with) offer wedding packages where local licensing wasn't needed or required. You can choose from legal, symbolic (secular) or a religious ceremony. I guess these types of weddings occur a pretty decent percentage of the time, if that many resorts thought to address the situation and readily accommodate it with a specific wedding package. Little wonder with all the hoops the Mexican government makes people jump through.
As I mentioned pages ago - only 5 people saw the signing of the marriage certificate at my first wedding (2 of them being the b&g). Did the other 150+ people fret that they had been duped? Did they actively wonder if what they saw (the vows, the rings, etc.,) was just us playing dress up? Or did they enjoy our ceremony for what they experienced then continue to enjoy our hospitality throughout the evening? Geez, I guess I should have asked for photocopies of the license before we left the church to be passed around during the cocktail hour that way everyone could rest assured!
I've been thinking....if the only one true way to get married is to sign a government document, aren't ALL weddings egotistical, dress up parties? By this logic, no one needs a dress, vows, rings, etc. All you'd need is a pen. Glad I'm not that literal!
Many etiquette rules have been thrown by the wayside over the years. Etiquette used to dictate that people who had been married previously should not have second (or third, or more) weddings. Now, that's out the window. Etiquette used to say people who had children out of wedlock should not have weddings. Now that's out the window. I could go on but my point really is that things change. All it takes is enough people to say "Pfft, screw this, we're doing it anyway" and eventually changes occur. We'll be leading the charge on this one I guess!

I have been reading this thread but refrained from commenting because I am in the minority in that I truly don't mind watching two people I care about express their love for one another whether it be at their wedding or at a "PPD". However, I am opposed to anyone lying to me about their marital status. The highlighted in your above comment bothers me a great deal. If, as you say, your family and friends wouldn't care about whether you are already married, then why are you not planning to tell them all?

Maggie0829 · October 2013

@STBMrsEverhart - You, my dear, are fucking ridiculous. If you hate our government so much then why not move to another country? Maybe when you go to Mexico for your fake ass wedding ceremony, how about you just stay there. A marriage license is so much more then just a piece of paper so that the government can make money off of you. And the fact that you don't see that is just so utterly depressing. Take your bullshit and go because you have no respect at all for marriage and everything that comes with it.

jenniferurs · October 2013

mobkaz said:

@STBMrsEverhart said, "obviously). We truly do not care what the state or federal government considers our relationship or what neat little box they place us. The fact is, we decided in April of this year to get married in September of next year. We've always known we wanted to do it in Mexico if we're going to do it. When we found out the criteria to legally wed down there we knew immediately we would not jump through hoops (the $300+ in fees, asking 4 witnesses to be there 72 hours in advance, blood work, etc.) when we could do the paperwork for $30 and 20 minutes of our time here before we left instead. Then some medical issues arose and we knew that by year's end we would file the marriage license so he could be on my health insurance without dealing with pre-existing conditions being a huge issue in the future. Digging ourselves in a financial hole over pre-existing medical conditions to avoid offending wedding etiquette wasn't even a consideration for us! Insuring the health of the man I love and not spending senseless hundreds of dollars with the Mexican government, all made perfect sense to us, regardless of what wedding etiquette has to say on the subject. As I've said before, as far as we're concerned, we'll not be married until we say our I Do's. We will not be changing anything about our relationship to indicate a change to "married" other than his having health insurance - no referring to other as husband or wife, no name change, no wedding bands, hell, we'll still be filing our taxes separately!!! At this point I'll ask all of you to refrain from the litany of "but you're not really having a wedding, it's a PPD, so on and so forth" because it's only wasting your own time - our plans are made, and I'm pretty sure the poor OP whose thread we jacked a long time ago has probably figured out her logistics by now! I can't imagine there's any more legitimate questions that I can answer so I'm bidding you all a good night!

You say you will not be married until you say your "I Do's", and yet you intend to recognize/celebrate your September MARRIAGE as your wedding anniversary.

The fact of the matter is that you can only have a first marriage, (as in, "We will celebrate only one wedding anniversary, starting with our first on September 13, 2015.") if you divorce and follow that with a second marriage. Try as you might, your rhetoric fails to deny the obvious....you are choosing to have a PPD.

I find it funny that 6 people liked this even though both portions of it sincerely misread the situation.

Maggie0829 · October 2013

jenniferurs said:

mobkaz said:

@STBMrsEverhart said, "obviously). We truly do not care what the state or federal government considers our relationship or what neat little box they place us. The fact is, we decided in April of this year to get married in September of next year. We've always known we wanted to do it in Mexico if we're going to do it. When we found out the criteria to legally wed down there we knew immediately we would not jump through hoops (the $300+ in fees, asking 4 witnesses to be there 72 hours in advance, blood work, etc.) when we could do the paperwork for $30 and 20 minutes of our time here before we left instead. Then some medical issues arose and we knew that by year's end we would file the marriage license so he could be on my health insurance without dealing with pre-existing conditions being a huge issue in the future. Digging ourselves in a financial hole over pre-existing medical conditions to avoid offending wedding etiquette wasn't even a consideration for us! Insuring the health of the man I love and not spending senseless hundreds of dollars with the Mexican government, all made perfect sense to us, regardless of what wedding etiquette has to say on the subject. As I've said before, as far as we're concerned, we'll not be married until we say our I Do's. We will not be changing anything about our relationship to indicate a change to "married" other than his having health insurance - no referring to other as husband or wife, no name change, no wedding bands, hell, we'll still be filing our taxes separately!!! At this point I'll ask all of you to refrain from the litany of "but you're not really having a wedding, it's a PPD, so on and so forth" because it's only wasting your own time - our plans are made, and I'm pretty sure the poor OP whose thread we jacked a long time ago has probably figured out her logistics by now! I can't imagine there's any more legitimate questions that I can answer so I'm bidding you all a good night!

You say you will not be married until you say your "I Do's", and yet you intend to recognize/celebrate your September MARRIAGE as your wedding anniversary.

The fact of the matter is that you can only have a first marriage, (as in, "We will celebrate only one wedding anniversary, starting with our first on September 13, 2015.") if you divorce and follow that with a second marriage. Try as you might, your rhetoric fails to deny the obvious....you are choosing to have a PPD.

I find it funny that 6 people liked this even though both portions of it sincerely misread the situation.

What?

crunchymamaof2 · October 2013

bubbles053009 said:

Also @STBMrsEverhart, the pure fact that you can't stand our government but want to take advantage of the legal benefits of getting married sickens me. It is people like you who irritate me and make me thankful that my parents brought me up right.

FTR, my BF's parents immigrated here from the Azores islands in the 70s because this country was a better place for them to live. Even though they could get his father better benefits and such if he was a citizen, rather than a permanent alien, by getting remarried here, they haven't. You know why? Because they view being married as being with someone you love and care about more than just a business transaction. Which referring it to that, btw, is essentially tossing it back to how it was centuries ago when your father would trade your hand in marriage for some fucking goats or cows or whatever.

Please just go...

@bubbles053009 Our dog is an Azores Cattle Dog :-) Well, her dad was and her mom was a staffie. We usually refer to her as a pit mix unless it's somewhere the word pitbull would get us in trouble lol. Anyways, sorry for the ramble, but everyone looks at us like we're crazy when we say Azores so to find someone else familiar with it is exciting :-)

jenniferurs · October 2013

Maggie0829 said:

jenniferurs said:

mobkaz said:

@STBMrsEverhart said, "obviously). We truly do not care what the state or federal government considers our relationship or what neat little box they place us. The fact is, we decided in April of this year to get married in September of next year. We've always known we wanted to do it in Mexico if we're going to do it. When we found out the criteria to legally wed down there we knew immediately we would not jump through hoops (the $300+ in fees, asking 4 witnesses to be there 72 hours in advance, blood work, etc.) when we could do the paperwork for $30 and 20 minutes of our time here before we left instead. Then some medical issues arose and we knew that by year's end we would file the marriage license so he could be on my health insurance without dealing with pre-existing conditions being a huge issue in the future. Digging ourselves in a financial hole over pre-existing medical conditions to avoid offending wedding etiquette wasn't even a consideration for us! Insuring the health of the man I love and not spending senseless hundreds of dollars with the Mexican government, all made perfect sense to us, regardless of what wedding etiquette has to say on the subject. As I've said before, as far as we're concerned, we'll not be married until we say our I Do's. We will not be changing anything about our relationship to indicate a change to "married" other than his having health insurance - no referring to other as husband or wife, no name change, no wedding bands, hell, we'll still be filing our taxes separately!!! At this point I'll ask all of you to refrain from the litany of "but you're not really having a wedding, it's a PPD, so on and so forth" because it's only wasting your own time - our plans are made, and I'm pretty sure the poor OP whose thread we jacked a long time ago has probably figured out her logistics by now! I can't imagine there's any more legitimate questions that I can answer so I'm bidding you all a good night!

You say you will not be married until you say your "I Do's", and yet you intend to recognize/celebrate your September MARRIAGE as your wedding anniversary.

The fact of the matter is that you can only have a first marriage, (as in, "We will celebrate only one wedding anniversary, starting with our first on September 13, 2015.") if you divorce and follow that with a second marriage. Try as you might, your rhetoric fails to deny the obvious....you are choosing to have a PPD.

I find it funny that 6 people liked this even though both portions of it sincerely misread the situation.

What?

She assumed that the September date they were celebrating was the court document date, but that IS the date during which they will be saying their "I Do's." So the first part was a misunderstanding.

In the second part, she seems to suggest that the word "first" (which she bolded) refers to the first of two ceremonies or marriages, but what it referred to was their first wedding anniversary, a year after the date of the wedding demonstration (hence 2015).

I just found it funny that she misunderstood two things and then a whole slew of people went on to like it.

As far as the topic as a whole, I'm not one to get caught up on "etiquette," because the fact of the matter is, things are constantly changing and what may be considered poor etiquette today, may not be tomorrow. In the end, I think each situation should be dictated by the particular group of family and friends at issue and making sure that that particular group has the best time they possibly can.

Personally, I think some people on here are overly sensitive and get "offended" by more things than most (for perspective, I posted some of these etiquette faux-pas on a male-dominated message board and they weren't offended by these things at all). That being said, I think it's terrible to mislead your friends and family. While I wouldn't be offended by a PPD (if you had, say, gotten the marriage license in CO and then had a Mexico wedding days later), I would be offended if you had been married for months upon months and led me to believe that you hadn't. If you're confident that everyone would still attend even if they knew the circumstances of your situation, you shouldn't be so hesitant to provide them. Signing a legal document is a pretty big deal in and of itself, so if these people are close enough to you that you'd invite them to Mexico to witness the vow portion, I'm not sure why you wouldn't mention to those same people over 9+ months that you had already engaged in the legal portion. If you do that and they still choose to attend, then I have no problem with your plan. But please don't mislead your guests.

PrettyGirlLost · October 2013

jenniferurs said:

Personally, I think some people on here are overly sensitive and get "offended" by more things than most (for perspective, I posted some of these etiquette faux-pas on a male-dominated message board and they weren't offended by these things at all). That being said, I think it's terrible to mislead your friends and family. While I wouldn't be offended by a PPD (if you had, say, gotten the marriage license in CO and then had a Mexico wedding days later), I would be offended if you had been married for months upon months and led me to believe that you hadn't. If you're confident that everyone would still attend even if they knew the circumstances of your situation, you shouldn't be so hesitant to provide them. Signing a legal document is a pretty big deal in and of itself, so if these people are close enough to you that you'd invite them to Mexico to witness the vow portion, I'm not sure why you wouldn't mention to those same people over 9+ months that you had already engaged in the legal portion. If you do that and they still choose to attend, then I have no problem with your plan. But please don't mislead your guests.

That doesn't prove anything related to etiquette. Just because you or the men on a message board are not personally offended by something, doesn't mean that it is correct etiquette, or that others won't be offended.

Also, I don't find many men, especially younger ones, to have any clue about etiquette in most cases.

mimiphin · October 2013

PrettyGirlLost said:

jenniferurs said:

Personally, I think some people on here are overly sensitive and get "offended" by more things than most (for perspective, I posted some of these etiquette faux-pas on a male-dominated message board and they weren't offended by these things at all). That being said, I think it's terrible to mislead your friends and family. While I wouldn't be offended by a PPD (if you had, say, gotten the marriage license in CO and then had a Mexico wedding days later), I would be offended if you had been married for months upon months and led me to believe that you hadn't. If you're confident that everyone would still attend even if they knew the circumstances of your situation, you shouldn't be so hesitant to provide them. Signing a legal document is a pretty big deal in and of itself, so if these people are close enough to you that you'd invite them to Mexico to witness the vow portion, I'm not sure why you wouldn't mention to those same people over 9+ months that you had already engaged in the legal portion. If you do that and they still choose to attend, then I have no problem with your plan. But please don't mislead your guests.

That doesn't prove anything related to etiquette. Just because you or the men on a message board are not personally offended by something, doesn't mean that it is correct etiquette, or that others won't be offended.

Also, I don't find many men, especially younger ones, to have any clue about etiquette in most cases.

Men don't know anything about etiquette, that's why it falls on the wife to ensure that everything is proper

jenniferurs · October 2013

PrettyGirlLost said:

jenniferurs said:

Personally, I think some people on here are overly sensitive and get "offended" by more things than most (for perspective, I posted some of these etiquette faux-pas on a male-dominated message board and they weren't offended by these things at all). That being said, I think it's terrible to mislead your friends and family. While I wouldn't be offended by a PPD (if you had, say, gotten the marriage license in CO and then had a Mexico wedding days later), I would be offended if you had been married for months upon months and led me to believe that you hadn't. If you're confident that everyone would still attend even if they knew the circumstances of your situation, you shouldn't be so hesitant to provide them. Signing a legal document is a pretty big deal in and of itself, so if these people are close enough to you that you'd invite them to Mexico to witness the vow portion, I'm not sure why you wouldn't mention to those same people over 9+ months that you had already engaged in the legal portion. If you do that and they still choose to attend, then I have no problem with your plan. But please don't mislead your guests.

That doesn't prove anything related to etiquette. Just because you or the men on a message board are not personally offended by something, doesn't mean that it is correct etiquette, or that others won't be offended.

Also, I don't find many men, especially younger ones, to have any clue about etiquette in most cases.

Right, but that's my whole point. Just because it's "etiquette" doesn't make it a universal thing. That's why I tend to make decisions based on what is best for my particular group, rather than universal etiquette (though I do make some decisions based on the latter).

PrettyGirlLost · October 2013

jenniferurs said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

jenniferurs said:

Personally, I think some people on here are overly sensitive and get "offended" by more things than most (for perspective, I posted some of these etiquette faux-pas on a male-dominated message board and they weren't offended by these things at all). That being said, I think it's terrible to mislead your friends and family. While I wouldn't be offended by a PPD (if you had, say, gotten the marriage license in CO and then had a Mexico wedding days later), I would be offended if you had been married for months upon months and led me to believe that you hadn't. If you're confident that everyone would still attend even if they knew the circumstances of your situation, you shouldn't be so hesitant to provide them. Signing a legal document is a pretty big deal in and of itself, so if these people are close enough to you that you'd invite them to Mexico to witness the vow portion, I'm not sure why you wouldn't mention to those same people over 9+ months that you had already engaged in the legal portion. If you do that and they still choose to attend, then I have no problem with your plan. But please don't mislead your guests.

That doesn't prove anything related to etiquette. Just because you or the men on a message board are not personally offended by something, doesn't mean that it is correct etiquette, or that others won't be offended.

Also, I don't find many men, especially younger ones, to have any clue about etiquette in most cases.

Right, but that's my whole point. Just because it's "etiquette" doesn't make it a universal thing. That's why I tend to make decisions based on what is best for my particular group, rather than universal etiquette (though I do make some decisions based on the latter).

But I think the issue is that etiquette is supposed to be universal.

jenniferurs · October 2013

PrettyGirlLost said:

jenniferurs said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

jenniferurs said:

Personally, I think some people on here are overly sensitive and get "offended" by more things than most (for perspective, I posted some of these etiquette faux-pas on a male-dominated message board and they weren't offended by these things at all). That being said, I think it's terrible to mislead your friends and family. While I wouldn't be offended by a PPD (if you had, say, gotten the marriage license in CO and then had a Mexico wedding days later), I would be offended if you had been married for months upon months and led me to believe that you hadn't. If you're confident that everyone would still attend even if they knew the circumstances of your situation, you shouldn't be so hesitant to provide them. Signing a legal document is a pretty big deal in and of itself, so if these people are close enough to you that you'd invite them to Mexico to witness the vow portion, I'm not sure why you wouldn't mention to those same people over 9+ months that you had already engaged in the legal portion. If you do that and they still choose to attend, then I have no problem with your plan. But please don't mislead your guests.

That doesn't prove anything related to etiquette. Just because you or the men on a message board are not personally offended by something, doesn't mean that it is correct etiquette, or that others won't be offended.

Also, I don't find many men, especially younger ones, to have any clue about etiquette in most cases.

Right, but that's my whole point. Just because it's "etiquette" doesn't make it a universal thing. That's why I tend to make decisions based on what is best for my particular group, rather than universal etiquette (though I do make some decisions based on the latter).

But I think the issue is that etiquette is supposed to be universal.

That's the idea, yes. I just think that sometimes the proper course of etiquette is not always ideal in real life situations. I know, for me personally, more often than not, what is deemed to be "offensive" on here isn't offensive to other people in my life elsewhere. The vast majority of people I've spoken to about these topics are amazed that people are actually offended by them. So while everyone on here should of course point to the proper "rule," since this is by definition the etiquette board, I just think that some people should be a little more open to things that are not always 100% by the book. I just feel like some people are a little rude to brides who do things a different way and it's not always necessary.

LDubHawksFan · October 2013

Right, but that's my whole point. Just because it's "etiquette" doesn't make it a universal thing. That's why I tend to make decisions based on what is best for my particular group, rather than universal etiquette (though I do make some decisions based on the latter).

But I think the issue is that etiquette is supposed to be universal.

That's the idea, yes. I just think that sometimes the proper course of etiquette is not always ideal in real life situations. I know, for me personally, more often than not, what is deemed to be "offensive" on here isn't offensive to other people in my life elsewhere. The vast majority of people I've spoken to about these topics are amazed that people are actually offended by them. So while everyone on here should of course point to the proper "rule," since this is by definition the etiquette board, I just think that some people should be a little more open to things that are not always 100% by the book. I just feel like some people are a little rude to brides who do things a different way and it's not always necessary.

But in a case of a wedding social event where your group of make friends would be invited with their wives or maybe your extended family who DO have the opinion that some of these things are wrong etiquette wise. And I'm only referring to smaller things like "adults only" or registry info in invitations. The idea of PPD, especially the thread jacking one above, is dishonest and deceitful. The idea of etiquette being universal is because you do not know what may offended 100% of your guest list usually and doing many of these sort of things runs the risk of someone getting offended.

Sometimes it is very snarky here, but it comes from regulars answering the same question over and over because posters don't bother to lurk, search for similar threads, or care to open the damn threads at the top about their exact situation.

jenniferurs · October 2013

lwoehlk said:

Right, but that's my whole point. Just because it's "etiquette" doesn't make it a universal thing. That's why I tend to make decisions based on what is best for my particular group, rather than universal etiquette (though I do make some decisions based on the latter).

But I think the issue is that etiquette is supposed to be universal.

That's the idea, yes. I just think that sometimes the proper course of etiquette is not always ideal in real life situations. I know, for me personally, more often than not, what is deemed to be "offensive" on here isn't offensive to other people in my life elsewhere. The vast majority of people I've spoken to about these topics are amazed that people are actually offended by them. So while everyone on here should of course point to the proper "rule," since this is by definition the etiquette board, I just think that some people should be a little more open to things that are not always 100% by the book. I just feel like some people are a little rude to brides who do things a different way and it's not always necessary. But in a case of a wedding social event where your group of make friends would be invited with their wives or maybe your extended family who DO have the opinion that some of these things are wrong etiquette wise. And I'm only referring to smaller things like "adults only" or registry info in invitations. The idea of PPD, especially the thread jacking one above, is dishonest and deceitful. The idea of etiquette being universal is because you do not know what may offended 100% of your guest list usually and doing many of these sort of things runs the risk of someone getting offended. Sometimes it is very snarky here, but it comes from regulars answering the same question over and over because posters don't bother to lurk, search for similar threads, or care to open the damn threads at the top about their exact situation.

For me personally, I didn't invite extended family. I didn't even invite all immediate family. I invited my half-brothers, their mothers, and my mom. Maybe we're just having a different kind of wedding, but we know each and every one of our guests very very well. If we didn't, we wouldn't be inviting them to our wedding. That being said, that may not be the case for everyone and I agree, in those instances, that it's best to err on the side of caution.

But for those people who know everyone at their wedding well and know what types of things would and would not offend them, I don't think it's the worst idea for them to say, have a cash bar, if they think that their guests would prefer that to a dry wedding. Like I said, I've spoken to people off this site who were appalled that people on here would prefer a dry wedding to a cash bar and said that they'd be MORE offended by the former than the latter. And that's the thing about etiquette. It's a great guide. But unfortunately, life isn't black and white, and as such, it's simply impossible to create an end-all-be-all rule, as all people are different. You're not going to please everyone, so I think the only thing you can do is try to please as many people as possible...and what that ultimately looks like is going to vary group by group.

Again, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with people offering up the rule of etiquette, as that's what this board is here for. But I think that sometimes you have to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that maybe they know their invitees better than anonymous people on a message board do. I guess I just don't get where all the hostility comes from.

APDSS22 · October 2013

@jenniferurs : Etiquette is being a polite hostess and seeing to your guests' comfort as much as possible (usually by trying to stay away from anything that would offend someone or cause them physical discomfort). How is it even possible to throw this to the side for the comfort of your guests? The rules of etiquette follow the general trend of "what will make the most people who could be invited comfortable and happy?"

A cash bar offends a great number of people (so at least one is probably among a bride's potential guest list). We see anecdotes on here all the time (like in the Worst Weddings You've Attended thread) that have people taking offense to a cash bar (the one coming to mind from that thread is where all the guests ran to rip the cash out of the cards they brought to pay for their drinks). Some people find them the normal thing for their circle of friends and really don't care, but a lot of people take offense to them so etiquette says to steer clear of a cash bar. And truly, it's more likely that the people who would be "offended" as you say by a dry wedding really just prefer to have alcohol at events to enjoy themselves. However, I'm sure they have attended events (even weddings) that were completely lovely without alcohol being served.

I'm not saying that brides can never have a good wedding that breaks some etiquette rules. It's just highly unlikely that every single person they invite would be okay with them breaking etiquette rules. Even if they say they are, they might be lying to the bride to make her feel better or not stress her out whilst inside they are deducting the amount they spent at the cash bar or traveling to her fake "wedding ceremony" from her Christmas/birthday gifts for the future. Also, this board is full of people from all sorts of backgrounds, in differing age groups and from different places and we all seem to pretty much agree on good etiquette (along with gurus like Miss Manners) so we're probably a good representation of the general population. A few people might say they don't care about one or two etiquette rules but the majority do so there's a good chance at least a handful of your guests feel the same way.

nmsa · October 2013

jenniferurs said:But I think the issue is that etiquette is supposed to be universal....But for those people who know everyone at their wedding well and know what types of things would and would not offend them, I don't think it's the worst idea for them to say, have a cash bar, if they think that their guests would prefer that to a dry wedding. Like I said, I've spoken to people off this site who were appalled that people on here would prefer a dry wedding to a cash bar and said that they'd be MORE offended by the former than the latter. And that's the thing about etiquette. It's a great guide. But unfortunately, life isn't black and white, and as such, it's simply impossible to create an end-all-be-all rule, as all people are different.

This is kind of a pet peeve of mine, so please let me preface this by stating that the following comments are broad and not directly specifically at you even though they're in response to you.

There is a distinction between "etiquette" and "preference" that a lot of posters on this board do not seem to understand. It opens the door to a lot of this back and forth that happens. "Well, my friends would rather pay for drinks than not drink, so a cash bar is ok." "Everyone around here gets married in December for taxes and then plans their 'real wedding' in June so it isn't rude for me to not tell my friends I'm already married." No.

To stay with your example, that people would rather drink than not drink is preference. If you know that it is the preference of most of the guests at your wedding to drink versus not drink, then it might be nice of you to have some kind of alcohol for them, but etiquette does not demand it. You can offer a full open bar, a limited open bar, wine and beer only, champagne only, no alcohol at all, or whatever is your preference and that is totally fine. People can like it or not. But it is not an etiquette issue.

Paying for what is offered at an event that you are hosting for your guests, so that your guests never need to open their wallet, is an etiquette issue. A cash bar is never ok. Never. It might not be to your taste to have a dry wedding, or a wedding with beer and wine only, but it is not poor etiquette. Having a cash bar is poor etiquette.

So to your original point - etiquette is universal. It is intended to be the highest standard of comfort and consideration for your guests. Personal taste is subjective. Sometimes they overlap - like when deciding what level of alcohol you will be providing free to your guests, if any at all, with any decision on the spectrum being ok. But you will never go wrong in providing care and comfort for your guests by following the rules of etiquette. You certainly can go wrong, however, breaking them.

PrettyGirlLost · October 2013

nmsa said:

jenniferurs said:
But I think the issue is that etiquette is supposed to be universal....
But for those people who know everyone at their wedding well and know what types of things would and would not offend them, I don't think it's the worst idea for them to say, have a cash bar, if they think that their guests would prefer that to a dry wedding. Like I said, I've spoken to people off this site who were appalled that people on here would prefer a dry wedding to a cash bar and said that they'd be MORE offended by the former than the latter. And that's the thing about etiquette. It's a great guide. But unfortunately, life isn't black and white, and as such, it's simply impossible to create an end-all-be-all rule, as all people are different.

This is kind of a pet peeve of mine, so please let me preface this by stating that the following comments are broad and not directly specifically at you even though they're in response to you.

There is a distinction between "etiquette" and "preference" that a lot of posters on this board do not seem to understand. It opens the door to a lot of this back and forth that happens. "Well, my friends would rather pay for drinks than not drink, so a cash bar is ok." "Everyone around here gets married in December for taxes and then plans their 'real wedding' in June so it isn't rude for me to not tell my friends I'm already married." No.

To stay with your example, that people would rather drink than not drink is preference. If you know that it is the preference of most of the guests at your wedding to drink versus not drink, then it might be nice of you to have some kind of alcohol for them, but etiquette does not demand it. You can offer a full open bar, a limited open bar, wine and beer only, champagne only, no alcohol at all, or whatever is your preference and that is totally fine. People can like it or not. But it is not an etiquette issue.

Paying for what is offered at an event that you are hosting for your guests, so that your guests never need to open their wallet, is an etiquette issue. A cash bar is never ok. Never. It might not be to your taste to have a dry wedding, or a wedding with beer and wine only, but it is not poor etiquette. Having a cash bar is poor etiquette.

So to your original point - etiquette is universal. It is intended to be the highest standard of comfort and consideration for your guests. Personal taste is subjective. Sometimes they overlap - like when deciding what level of alcohol you will be providing free to your guests, if any at all, with any decision on the spectrum being ok. But you will never go wrong in providing care and comfort for your guests by following the rules of etiquette. You certainly can go wrong, however, breaking them.

Can we sticky this?!

casey8784 · October 2013

Random question: what would "etiquette" say about getting married in Europe? My cousin got married this past summer in Italy (his wife is Italian). Italy requires a separate civil ceremony before any religious ceremony can take place. We were invited to both ceremonies - they were a couple days apart, but we chose to only go to the religious ceremony. Would this have been considered a PPD? It's kind of a catch 22 cause the country would not recognize only a Jewish ceremony, and Judaism wouldn't recognize a purely civil ceremony.

QueerFemme · October 2013

casey8784 said:

Random question: what would "etiquette" say about getting married in Europe? My cousin got married this past summer in Italy (his wife is Italian). Italy requires a separate civil ceremony before any religious ceremony can take place. We were invited to both ceremonies - they were a couple days apart, but we chose to only go to the religious ceremony. Would this have been considered a PPD? It's kind of a catch 22 cause the country would not recognize only a Jewish ceremony, and Judaism wouldn't recognize a purely civil ceremony.

Situations like this where the country law requires a seperate civil ceremony are the only true exception to the rule. And even then, the civil ceremony is typically done privately with maybe parents, siblings only, and very understated and like you said, a day or two apart. Not months apart, and not in the United States, where religious and non-JOP civil ceremonies are actually valid and legal. And usually, the only reason they are a day apart, is because of the forced time constraints placed on the couple by the jurisdiction (like, they only perform civil ceremonies on Thursdays from 11am-1pm or something random like that).

The fact that you were invited to both, as a cousin, is somewhat odd to me.

kitty8403 · October 2013

STBMrsEverhart said:

Maggie0829 said:

I think it is absolutely horrible that your Mom considers the day that you become legally married to your FI as a "business transaction". Disgusting. And now I know where you get this entitled and self-absorbed attitude from.

I'm sorry to have to subject you to such horrors. The only people I have ever known who seem to have such an emotional attachment to a marriage license, an insignificant government document (in the opinions of those that matter most us) hang out right here on TK. I can barely stomach our government let alone care about their classification of my relationship. Again, those closest to us feel the same (about both the government and the (in)significance of marriage licenses). If that is self-absorbed and entitled, so be it. I don't consider it either of those things. In fact, I don't consider it much at all. To be brutally honest, I consider it on the same level as paying a parking ticket (same building, same parking nightmare, about the same amount of money). Only wait, the city and county of Denver actually made paying parking tickets easy to pay online, so I think we know which one we think more highly of. A marriage license is a way for a municipality to make more money. A way to make sure they get their hooks in good and deep. So deep in fact, they still make money if the relationship dissolves!! If you're emotionally attached to that, be my guest. If your marriage license is what makes you feel married than excellent, who am I to judge? I could go so far as to say that makes me sad for you because you're missing so much of the point but I'm not emotionally invested in you or your relationship - and you'll come to figure it all out on your own eventually.

^ I'm sorry. I see the gray in some of these forum debates, but insisting that you need to get married months before your Mexico trip because you require that documentation for insurance purposes and then turning around and claiming that the same marriage license is as unimportant and insignificant to you as a parking ticket makes no sense. That "business transaction" is the *primary reason for the timing of your marriage.* Nothing wrong with that choice. Just own it. The backtracking is silly.

ETA: I found @QueerFemme's commentary after originally posting this. Couldn't agree more!

(Eta: phone quote confusion)

casey8784 · October 2013

QueerFemme said:

casey8784 said:

Random question: what would "etiquette" say about getting married in Europe? My cousin got married this past summer in Italy (his wife is Italian). Italy requires a separate civil ceremony before any religious ceremony can take place. We were invited to both ceremonies - they were a couple days apart, but we chose to only go to the religious ceremony. Would this have been considered a PPD? It's kind of a catch 22 cause the country would not recognize only a Jewish ceremony, and Judaism wouldn't recognize a purely civil ceremony.

Situations like this where the country law requires a seperate civil ceremony are the only true exception to the rule. And even then, the civil ceremony is typically done privately with maybe parents, siblings only, and very understated and like you said, a day or two apart. Not months apart, and not in the United States, where religious and non-JOP civil ceremonies are actually valid and legal. And usually, the only reason they are a day apart, is because of the forced time constraints placed on the couple by the jurisdiction (like, they only perform civil ceremonies on Thursdays from 11am-1pm or something random like that).

The fact that you were invited to both, as a cousin, is somewhat odd to me.

It ended up being only immediate family, but they extended the invite to us in case we wanted to go. I think it was because they knew we'd already be in Tuscany. (Now)-FI and I took a 2 week vacation (He proposed while we were in Venice) since we didn't want to just go for a long weekend. I actually grew up with this cousin and my aunt and uncle for a while, so we consider each other more like siblings.

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

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

Choose Another Board

Search Boards