Civil ceremony before actual wedding

HisGirlFriday13 · January 2014

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning!

"Just to meet legal requirements"? You mean, the thousands and thousands of legal benefits and protections that come with marriage that are denied to same-sex couples but given to all heterosexual couples automatically upon marriage? You mean the strongest legal protection available in America? You mean the right to make end-of-life decisions, automatically, based solely on speaking wedding vows? You mean THOSE 'legal requirements'?

Please. Get over yourself, and don't denigrate 'just legal requirements' as somehow less important than a ceremony, when those requirements are denied to people in most of this country and most of the rest of the world.

OP has the ability to have the legal and religious ceremony at the same place at the same time; she's CHOOSING to do it differently because she thinks she's a special snowflake who gets special privileges. No. Wanting to get married in England means meeting those requirements, whatever they may be, and not lying to your guests about it.

PrettyGirlLost · January 2014

photokitty said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning!

So it's ok to have the guests be "grossly inconvenienced" and pay for an "expensive" trip so you don't have to pay the money to meet the legally requirements???

The OP stated she is concerned that people will feel they missed "real" wedding - her words, not mine. This is a valid and real concern as many have said they would be disappointed or upset. Just bc you think it's ok, doesn't mean everyone will feel the same way. The OP is concerned about her guests' feelings - which is awesome! She had some tough decisions to make, but as long sa she considers how her guests will feel, she is on the right track.

STBMrsEverhart, no comment on the track you chose - we are all too familiar with your plans.)

ashleyep · January 2014

STBMrsEverhart said:

ashleyep said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning!

You know what's also grossly inconvenient and expensive? Flying out to a foreign country to watch someone pretend to get married.

I guess you should choose the "regretfully declines" box on any rsvp card to any wedding you disagree with then. Seems a very easy solution for you.

I can't do that if I don't know I'm being invited to a farce of a wedding, now can I?

short+sassy · January 2014

jenniferurs said:

AprilH81 said:

short+sassy said:

There have been a few posts about foreign countries where the civil ceremony literally cannot be held on the same day as the wedding ceremony. Since the wedding ceremony will be in a part of England that does not allow this, I see no difference in having the civil ceremony ahead of time in the U.S., since it would have to be ahead of time if it was done in England anyway.
Maybe I misunderstood, but the civil/religious issue was not mentioned in the original post. The OP just doesn't want to deal with the hassle of going to England early enough to get the license to be legally married over there.

Actually, that was my understanding of it. She says in the original post that this part of England states the wedding ceremony (which I assumed to be the religious part) must be "...no less than two weeks before the wedding". This situation isn't the typical "oh, we had to have the civil paperwork done early because it was too hard/expensive to file at our fab destination wedding on the Galapagos Islands. Or oh we had to have the JOP marry us before the real wedding for insurance/insert excuse."

Even if they were to arrive in England two weeks before their wedding ceremony for the civil ceremony to also be in England, it is still taking place two weeks before the religious ceremony because that is the law there. As such, I don't see a difference between having the civil ceremony in the U.S., which would probably be closer to the wedding ceremony date anyway, than if they did it all in England. No matter how you slice it, it has to be two different dates if they are getting married in Oxford, England. At least that is my understanding of the post.
I think you're confusing marriage license with wedding ceremony.

I was! Thanks AprilH81 and photokitty for clarifying the situation (at least for me). And in fact I worried about the license thing myself because I got married in a different state from where I live but (thankfully!) it wasn't an issue and there was no waiting period.

To the OP, the other PPs have great ideas for either obtaining your license ahead of time even if it is a bit of a hassle and an extra trip. Or getting married in the U.S. and then having a celebratory party in England (sans the fake ceremony and some of the other wedding traditions like first dance, bridal party, etc.). I know it may not feel like it now, but I think getting married ahead of time and then having a "reception" later on would diminish the joy of both days.

mrs4everhart · January 2014

HisGirlFriday13 said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning!

"Just to meet legal requirements"? You mean, the thousands and thousands of legal benefits and protections that come with marriage that are denied to same-sex couples but given to all heterosexual couples automatically upon marriage? You mean the strongest legal protection available in America? You mean the right to make end-of-life decisions, automatically, based solely on speaking wedding vows? You mean THOSE 'legal requirements'?

Please. Get over yourself, and don't denigrate 'just legal requirements' as somehow less important than a ceremony, when those requirements are denied to people in most of this country and most of the rest of the world. Looks like I can and I did.

OP has the ability to have the legal and religious ceremony at the same place at the same time; she's CHOOSING to do it differently because she thinks she's a special snowflake who gets special privileges. No. Wanting to get married in England means meeting those requirements, whatever they may be, and not lying to your guests about it. Are you certain the OP has made a choice one way or the other yet?

mrs4everhart · January 2014

ashleyep said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

ashleyep said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning!

You know what's also grossly inconvenient and expensive? Flying out to a foreign country to watch someone pretend to get married.

I guess you should choose the "regretfully declines" box on any rsvp card to any wedding you disagree with then. Seems a very easy solution for you.

I can't do that if I don't know I'm being invited to a farce of a wedding, now can I?

I don't recall the OP saying she was considering not divulging all of the information.

But to answer your question - you never really know, unless you are a witness to the signing or ask to see the document. It must really worry folks like y'all every time you get an invite.

cruffino · January 2014

But I'm super special and my circumstances are really unique and different....

SlothGoals · January 2014

STBMrsEverhart said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

Please. Get over yourself, and don't denigrate 'just legal requirements' as somehow less important than a ceremony, when those requirements are denied to people in most of this country and most of the rest of the world. Looks like I can and I did.

Umm... @STBMrsEverheart the stuff you wrote in purple? Yeah, that makes you a fucking awful human being. Straight up.

Get the fuck off the boards if you're going to spew hate towards something that people are fighting for EVERY DAMN DAY all over the world. You want people to be sympathetic to your excuse of a fake wedding? You should try not offending them at every turn.

mrs4everhart · January 2014

kristbot said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

Please. Get over yourself, and don't denigrate 'just legal requirements' as somehow less important than a ceremony, when those requirements are denied to people in most of this country and most of the rest of the world. Looks like I can and I did.

Umm... @STBMrsEverheart the stuff you wrote in purple? Yeah, that makes you a fucking awful human being. Straight up. No, it makes me lack emotional attachment to a legal document. But if you think I'm an awful human being, that's no skin off my nose frankly.

Get the fuck off the boards if you're going to spew hate towards something that people are fighting for EVERY DAMN DAY all over the world. You want people to be sympathetic to your excuse of a fake wedding? I don't recall asking for anyone's sympathy. Our wedding is not cause for such emotions. The only hate I ever read on these boards never comes from me. My views are different certainly (thank god), but in no way hateful.You should try not offending them at every turn. People's reactions to my views are not my problem.

HisGirlFriday13 · January 2014

I reiterate for the umpteenth time, WHY DON'T WE ALL PUT @STBMrsEverhart on our ignore lists, so we can ignore her stupid opinions and hateful comments and general crappy attitude?

mrs4everhart · January 2014

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I reiterate for the umpteenth time, WHY DON'T WE ALL PUT @STBMrsEverhart on our ignore lists, so we can ignore her stupid opinions and hateful comments and general crappy attitude?

Christ almighty I wish y'all would.

MobKaz · January 2014

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I reiterate for the umpteenth time, WHY DON'T WE ALL PUT @STBMrsEverhart on our ignore lists, so we can ignore her stupid opinions and hateful comments and general crappy attitude?

I see an entire Lenten chain of candidates headed my way.

Fran1985 · January 2014

ashleyep said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

ashleyep said:

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, if you were my friend or family member that I was close to, I would attend your wedding ceremony regardless of when and/or where you signed your license. I understand making multiple trips to a foreign country may be grossly inconvenient and expensive, especially just to meet legal requirements. FWIW, unlike the rest of the crowd, the satisfying of the civil requirements does not trip my trigger, nor do I consider it THEE pinnacle of importance in two people marrying one and other. Best of luck in your planning!

You know what's also grossly inconvenient and expensive? Flying out to a foreign country to watch someone pretend to get married.

I guess you should choose the "regretfully declines" box on any rsvp card to any wedding you disagree with then. Seems a very easy solution for you.

I can't do that if I don't know I'm being invited to a farce of a wedding, now can I?

I don't recall the OP saying she was considering not divulging all of the information.

But to answer your question - you never really know, unless you are a witness to the signing or ask to see the document. It must really worry folks like y'all every time you get an invite.

You keep making this crazy argument that "you never really know" Most people aren't lying to their friends and family! Thats like saying you never really know if your partner is cheating. Sure you can technically say that, but if you know your partner is a good person and trust them, then you know. I know my friends and family are honest people and wouldnt ask me to spend money on a vacation without telling me they are already married. So I don't worry about it. Sure once and a while someone like you is going to upset that faith in people's friends, and once in a while someone's spouse is going to cheat, but most of the time I think people are generally good.

QueerFemme · January 2014

I think every asshole who claims the legal part isn't what matters any way should have to contribute to my lost tax benefits

LondonLisa · January 2014

kellySanFran said:

Hello, I have seen this question posted a lot, but none of the answers seem quite related to my scenario. My fiance and I met in England and would like to be married in the city we met. However, the legal hurdles of getting married in Oxford are quite strict and I know we will not be able to properly be wed in England (you must get your license no more than one year and no less than two weeks before the wedding, you must be in the city for 9 days prior to receiving the license, etc.). My plan is to have the ceremony the morning before we fly out to England, but I am concerned that people will feel like they missed my "real" wedding. Has anyone had this foreign wedding problem? Or are there any suggestions to make the civil ceremony less important?

I'm sorry, but that is the price of getting married in England. You only have 2 options;

1.) Marry in the US, have your reception right afterwards and then whilst on holiday in the UK, throw a fun party (NOT a wedding redo) for your mates in Oxford.

2.) Take an extended holiday to the UK, get a UK fiance visa and meet the residency requirements and get married in England.

I would be really hurt and angry if I had spent money flying from America to GB to witness a fake wedding. Also, I don't know of any church that would allow a fake wedding ceremony in the UK. They are really strict about this, and you could actually be prosecuted under bigamy laws!

The event in which you are "wed" is your wedding. In your proposed case, it is the civil ceremony. In both America and the UK there legal and religious ceremonies are the same thing so it isn't like other countries where there are 2 parts.

I know it is special to you to get married in Oxford, but this is the way the cookie crumbles. Be an adult, make the correct decisions and don't throw a fake wedding. PPD are awful and tacky, but take on an extra level of declasse when you ask people to pay to fly transcontinentally to witness it!

Lamiavita · January 2014

I live about 30 minutes outside of Oxford

If you do decide to do the wedding here, you may want to ensure you include very clear directions to your venue for all guests. Oxford is a gorgeous city, once you actually find your way into it.

My FI is from Sicilly. We toyed with the idea of getting married over there, but it turned out it was just going to be too much messing around, so, we're getting married here in the UK, and having our honeymoon in Sicilly.
That's mostly because I'm too lazy to hash through all the legal requirements for a Sicillan wedding... Lol

lyndausvi · January 2014

HisGirlFriday13 said:

I reiterate for the umpteenth time, WHY DON'T WE ALL PUT @STBMrsEverhart on our ignore lists, so we can ignore her stupid opinions and hateful comments and general crappy attitude?

Because then I will not be able to help some poor unsuspecting newb from her terrible advice. Even if a newb doesn't agree with me, at least she has more information to make a sound decision.

delujm0 · January 2014

QueerFemme said:

I think every asshole who claims the legal part isn't what matters any way should have to contribute to my lost tax benefits

Love this.

Side note: after we get married, we'll actually have to pay MORE taxes than we did separately last year. What a botch. Those bastards will get you either way. ;-)

QueerFemme · January 2014

delujm0 said:

QueerFemme said:

I think every asshole who claims the legal part isn't what matters any way should have to contribute to my lost tax benefits

Love this.

Side note: after we get married, we'll actually have to pay MORE taxes than we did separately last year. What a botch. Those bastards will get you either way. ;-)

I'm OK paying more tax. What I'm not OK with is paying tax in my spouse's medical benefits. I paid about $5k more just in medical premiums and medical related taxes last year than a straight married couple.

And that whole social security right of survivorship thing.

RissAnn1970 · January 2014

Here's the thing: If you want to get married in England but have a civil ceremony in the US first, you're foiling your own plans! Doesn't matter how many ceremonies and receptions you have in how many locations. Doesn't matter what YOU consider "real" or when you celebrate your anniversary. You will have gotten married in the United States.

I spent about 17 years as a divorce lawyer, and may you never go through it, BUT... If you ever did need to file... In a Complaint for Divorce, ay least in NJ,you need to say "plaintiff and defendant were married on X date at Y location." Your own complaint, OP, would read, "KellySanFran and KellySanFran's SO were married on [earlier date] in [US city], [US state]." Because that's when and where you will have been married, NOT England. It's the SECOND ceremony/reception that just doesn't matter, not the first.

delujm0 · January 2014

QueerFemme said:

QueerFemme said:

I think every asshole who claims the legal part isn't what matters any way should have to contribute to my lost tax benefits

Love this.

Side note: after we get married, we'll actually have to pay MORE taxes than we did separately last year. What a botch. Those bastards will get you either way. ;-)
I'm OK paying more tax. What I'm not OK with is paying tax in my spouse's medical benefits. I paid about $5k more just in medical premiums and medical related taxes last year than a straight married couple. And that whole social security right of survivorship thing.

I hear that actually. FI was previously on my medical as my domestic partner (he is self-employed so has to provide his own health insurance) and it cost a fortune because it was post-tax. Aaaaaand then we did our research and realized that it's actually cheaper for him to have his own health insurance because he's a young healthy male. Seriously, when i was unemployed and looked at getting my own insurance, even though we are the same age and are both perfectly healthy, mine would have cost 3X what his did. I guess because i have the ability to get pregnant? who knows. health care in this country is such a stupid mess.

Note inside of the context of this thread: even though having FI on my health insurance as a domestic partner was annoying and more expensive, what we did NOT do was go down to city hall and "sign the paperwork" in order to get the benefit of pre-tax health insurance and then pretend that it wasn't the "real" wedding. That flies in the face of everyone who accepts and understands that the city hall wedding is the real wedding, and also of all of the people who don't have the luxury of just "signing the paperwork" to get those benefits.

QueerFemme · January 2014

delujm0 said:

QueerFemme said:

QueerFemme said:

I think every asshole who claims the legal part isn't what matters any way should have to contribute to my lost tax benefits

Love this.

Side note: after we get married, we'll actually have to pay MORE taxes than we did separately last year. What a botch. Those bastards will get you either way. ;-)
I'm OK paying more tax. What I'm not OK with is paying tax in my spouse's medical benefits. I paid about $5k more just in medical premiums and medical related taxes last year than a straight married couple. And that whole social security right of survivorship thing.

I hear that actually. FI was previously on my medical as my domestic partner (he is self-employed so has to provide his own health insurance) and it cost a fortune because it was post-tax. Aaaaaand then we did our research and realized that it's actually cheaper for him to have his own health insurance because he's a young healthy male. Seriously, when i was unemployed and looked at getting my own insurance, even though we are the same age and are both perfectly healthy, mine would have cost 3X what his did. I guess because i have the ability to get pregnant? who knows. health care in this country is such a stupid mess.

Note inside of the context of this thread: even though having FI on my health insurance as a domestic partner was annoying and more expensive, what we did NOT do was go down to city hall and "sign the paperwork" in order to get the benefit of pre-tax health insurance and then pretend that it wasn't the "real" wedding. That flies in the face of everyone who accepts and understands that the city hall wedding is the real wedding, and also of all of the people who don't have the luxury of just "signing the paperwork" to get those benefits.

Exactly !! We got married going on 2 years ago. it wasn't legal in our state, but we had a big ol wedding anyway. When it became legal in California, we went down and had a quickie JOP wedding, and now, I save that money. But, I spent over a year being married, and not enjoying any of the legal benefits or protections of it.

Maybe people who discount that those benefits as "just a piece of paper" should have to spend some time being denied it.

Jells2dot0 · January 2014

QueerFemme said:

delujm0 said:

QueerFemme said:

QueerFemme said:

I think every asshole who claims the legal part isn't what matters any way should have to contribute to my lost tax benefits

Love this.

Side note: after we get married, we'll actually have to pay MORE taxes than we did separately last year. What a botch. Those bastards will get you either way. ;-)
I'm OK paying more tax. What I'm not OK with is paying tax in my spouse's medical benefits. I paid about $5k more just in medical premiums and medical related taxes last year than a straight married couple. And that whole social security right of survivorship thing.

I hear that actually. FI was previously on my medical as my domestic partner (he is self-employed so has to provide his own health insurance) and it cost a fortune because it was post-tax. Aaaaaand then we did our research and realized that it's actually cheaper for him to have his own health insurance because he's a young healthy male. Seriously, when i was unemployed and looked at getting my own insurance, even though we are the same age and are both perfectly healthy, mine would have cost 3X what his did. I guess because i have the ability to get pregnant? who knows. health care in this country is such a stupid mess.

Note inside of the context of this thread: even though having FI on my health insurance as a domestic partner was annoying and more expensive, what we did NOT do was go down to city hall and "sign the paperwork" in order to get the benefit of pre-tax health insurance and then pretend that it wasn't the "real" wedding. That flies in the face of everyone who accepts and understands that the city hall wedding is the real wedding, and also of all of the people who don't have the luxury of just "signing the paperwork" to get those benefits.

Exactly !! We got married going on 2 years ago. it wasn't legal in our state, but we had a big ol wedding anyway. When it became legal in California, we went down and had a quickie JOP wedding, and now, I save that money. But, I spent over a year being married, and not enjoying any of the legal benefits or protections of it.

Maybe people who discount that those benefits as "just a piece of paper" should have to spend some time being denied it.

I fall into the "marriage doesn't give me any tax breaks" camp as well. This year is going to be BRUTAL. However, regardless of how much more I'll owe or the fact that not too much changed after the papers were signed (we both kept our benefits and we already had a living trust in place), signing those papers meant the world to me. I am glad you were finally able to make it legal and I hope that others on here will stop taking the legal aspects of getting married for granted. Sure, it's a piece of paper, but it's a VERY special, powerful, and meaningful piece of paper!

mrs4everhart · January 2014

RissAnn1970 said:

Here's the thing: If you want to get married in England but have a civil ceremony in the US first, you're foiling your own plans! Doesn't matter how many ceremonies and receptions you have in how many locations. Doesn't matter what YOU consider "real" or when you celebrate your anniversary. You will have gotten married in the United States. I spent about 17 years as a divorce lawyer, and may you never go through it, BUT... If you ever did need to file... In a Complaint for Divorce, ay least in NJ,you need to say "plaintiff and defendant were married on X date at Y location." Your own complaint, OP, would read, "KellySanFran and KellySanFran's SO were married on [earlier date] in [US city], [US state]." Because that's when and where you will have been married, NOT England. It's the SECOND ceremony/reception that just doesn't matter, not the first.

I'm trying to figure out why this is some kind of deterrent? If her relationship fails and she's facing divorce, stating her marriage date on her divorce papers as the date they signed/filed their license is the least of her problems.

mimiphin · January 2014

Jells2dot0 said:

QueerFemme said:

delujm0 said:

QueerFemme said:

QueerFemme said:

I think every asshole who claims the legal part isn't what matters any way should have to contribute to my lost tax benefits

Love this.

Side note: after we get married, we'll actually have to pay MORE taxes than we did separately last year. What a botch. Those bastards will get you either way. ;-)
I'm OK paying more tax. What I'm not OK with is paying tax in my spouse's medical benefits. I paid about $5k more just in medical premiums and medical related taxes last year than a straight married couple. And that whole social security right of survivorship thing.

I hear that actually. FI was previously on my medical as my domestic partner (he is self-employed so has to provide his own health insurance) and it cost a fortune because it was post-tax. Aaaaaand then we did our research and realized that it's actually cheaper for him to have his own health insurance because he's a young healthy male. Seriously, when i was unemployed and looked at getting my own insurance, even though we are the same age and are both perfectly healthy, mine would have cost 3X what his did. I guess because i have the ability to get pregnant? who knows. health care in this country is such a stupid mess.

Note inside of the context of this thread: even though having FI on my health insurance as a domestic partner was annoying and more expensive, what we did NOT do was go down to city hall and "sign the paperwork" in order to get the benefit of pre-tax health insurance and then pretend that it wasn't the "real" wedding. That flies in the face of everyone who accepts and understands that the city hall wedding is the real wedding, and also of all of the people who don't have the luxury of just "signing the paperwork" to get those benefits.

Exactly !! We got married going on 2 years ago. it wasn't legal in our state, but we had a big ol wedding anyway. When it became legal in California, we went down and had a quickie JOP wedding, and now, I save that money. But, I spent over a year being married, and not enjoying any of the legal benefits or protections of it.

Maybe people who discount that those benefits as "just a piece of paper" should have to spend some time being denied it.

I fall into the "marriage doesn't give me any tax breaks" camp as well. This year is going to be BRUTAL. However, regardless of how much more I'll owe or the fact that not too much changed after the papers were signed (we both kept our benefits and we already had a living trust in place), signing those papers meant the world to me. I am glad you were finally able to make it legal and I hope that others on here will stop taking the legal aspects of getting married for granted. Sure, it's a piece of paper, but it's a VERY special, powerful, and meaningful piece of paper!

I agree,
I have a ~$30,000 piece of paper (University Degree) on my wall (well not yet, but I get it in May, done all the courses just waiting to walk across the stage), It is very important and I worked damn hard to get it. But I would burn the sucker up if I had to chose between it and my 'future' marriage license.
To me all the other stuff is fluff, its signing that piece of paper after our vows in front of our loved ones is what means the most to me. If we could go to city hall and get married we would, (you can't do that in BC, you have to find an officiant and have them do it either out of their house or at a typical wedding) If we need to plan around who is marring us then we might as well have the big-todo

OP seems to have gone away, I really hope that she comes back and comments some more (Not sarcasm, I really want to hear the end of the story) and I hold out hope that she isn't a one-post-wonder.

LondonLisa · January 2014

Schatzi13 said:

@LondonLisa, if you know, does a foreigner always need a fiancee visa in order to marry in the UK, or could she marry while in the UK as a visitor, and then go back home? The latter is possible in the US - one needs a fiance(e) visa only when one plans to stay after the wedding - but obviously the UK does not have the same laws.

ETA: If OP (and her FI?) does need a visa, then this is something else to look into when planning an Oxford wedding. One does not "make the civil ceremony less important" when one is in this situation. Instead, one decides whether the desired location for one's wedding is worth jumping through the hoops.

Schatzi13

If you are not a UK citizen you will not be allowed to be married in the UK without a visitors fiance visa. They will literally turn you away at the registry office (or worse, refused entry at customs at Heathrow, which means an automatic 5-10 year ban from the UK). Even if your fi is a UK resident/ citizen and you are not, you must have a visa.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/visiting/marriage-cp/

OP-Are you a EU/EEA citizen? Is your Fi?

RissAnn1970 · January 2014

STBMrsEverhart said:

RissAnn1970 said:

Here's the thing: If you want to get married in England but have a civil ceremony in the US first, you're foiling your own plans! Doesn't matter how many ceremonies and receptions you have in how many locations. Doesn't matter what YOU consider "real" or when you celebrate your anniversary. You will have gotten married in the United States.

I spent about 17 years as a divorce lawyer, and may you never go through it, BUT... If you ever did need to file... In a Complaint for Divorce, ay least in NJ,you need to say "plaintiff and defendant were married on X date at Y location." Your own complaint, OP, would read, "KellySanFran and KellySanFran's SO were married on [earlier date] in [US city], [US state]." Because that's when and where you will have been married, NOT England. It's the SECOND ceremony/reception that just doesn't matter, not the first.

I'm trying to figure out why this is some kind of deterrent? If her relationship fails and she's facing divorce, stating her marriage date on her divorce papers as the date they signed/filed their license is the least of her problems.

-----

I didn't mean the circumstances of divorce as a deterrent. I specifically said I hope she never needs to deal with it. The POINT is that in real life, your date and place of marriage is your date and place of marriage. End of story. Doesn't matter what you "think" or "consider" or "celebrate." Reality is that the date and place of marriage is what it is, and once it's done, it's done. So if her desire and purpose is to be married in the UK, she needs to get married in the UK. If she gets married in the US first, it doesn't matter how big or beautiful or elaborate or heartfelt her second ceremony would be in th UK, doesn't matter if she calls it a wedding. She will be physically unable to "get married" in the UK, since she will have already gotten married in the US. She'll have foiled her own plan. THAT is the deterrent.

Civil ceremony before actual wedding

Re: Civil ceremony before actual wedding

Choose Another Board

Search Boards