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

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

• mcgarci2 member

  

  February 2014

  Now THAT ^^^ is how you end a thread!

  }

  Report0 Reply
• grumbledore member

  

  February 2014 edited February 2014

  24 pages boiled down:
  

  It is perfectly fine to get married sooner and differently than planned, and there are surely many perfectly understandable and acceptable reasons for doing so.
  

  It is ridiculous to later hold a fake wedding. You are already married. Move on. You made the choice, which was perfectly fine, to get married in a way other than you originally envisioned.
  

  No one is saying there aren't reasons to get married sooner/differently. But own your reasons and live with it.
  

  If you choose to be ridiculous, then fine, but don't expect us to think it's a good idea, because we won't.
  

  

  
  

  

  Report29 Reply
• Inkdancer member

  

  February 2014

  @grumbledore You are a goddess of wisdom and beauty and rainbows.
  

  

  

  Report6 Reply
• happywiggle member

  

  February 2014

  Man, I go away for a few days, and this thread blows up.

  I agree with @Inkdancer on her above post about @grumbledore being the goddess of wisdom and beauty and rainbows.

  Inkdancer said:

  @grumbledore You are a goddess of wisdom and beauty and rainbows.
  

  
  

  Report5 Reply
• grumbledore member

  

  February 2014

  Aw shucks you guys

  
  

  

  Report0 Reply
• fourtsixand2 member

  

  February 2014

  As my fiance and I have already been married once before, we don't feel the need to hold a formal wedding ceremony.  We've been down that road and just don't think the costs associated with it are worth it, so we are holding a reception/party.  We plan to exchange vows privately and host a wedding reception afterwards.  I would like us both to wear wedding attire, though.

  But I agree - I couldn't in good conscious get married, then hold a ceremony to exchange vows just for looks.   

  Report0 Reply
• beam20062010 member

  

  February 2014 edited February 2014

  @grumbledore

  "24 pages boiled down: 
  It is perfectly fine to get married sooner and differently than planned, and there are surely many perfectly understandable and acceptable reasons for doing so. 
  It is ridiculous to later hold a fake wedding. You are already married. Move on. You made the choice, which was perfectly fine, to get married in a way other than you originally envisioned. 
  No one is saying there aren't reasons to get married sooner/differently. But own your reasons and live with it. 
  If you choose to be ridiculous, then fine, but don't expect us to think it's a good idea, because we won't."
  
  Sorry, but I think it's hysterical how grumbledore waits until after everyone has posted "to agree to disagree" before posting this wonderful summary. If I had even thought of posting again, you ladies would have surely defeated me with some kind of smart-assery. However, this chick does it and The Knot groupies Love the fuck out of it. Classic.    

  Report4 Reply
• carringtonleigh member

  

  February 2014

  Now… I’m new to The Knot, and so this is my first post. I looked through this thread out of curiosity a few days ago, and now feel that I should respond with my two cents… so be nice.

  I will be a bride who will be legally married and then having a separate ceremony.  We are getting married in Italy and found that the requirements to do so are too complex in a time when everything else for the wedding needs to be planned. France is even worse – requiring one of the parties to live in France for 40 days prior to the civil ceremony. We could have picked an easier place, but we are travelers to our core and got engaged in Rome.

  What a wedding means varies across cultures. In France (and Italy), it’s required to have a separate civil ceremony beforehand, and then you celebrate your religion in an additional ceremony. The first one is generally extremely small and takes place in an office (or a nice building, depending on the city). The second takes place in a church or a chapel. Many families then stick to the tradition of having an elaborate dinner party, not the traditional reception (although, as the world globalizes, that’s changing). The whole event is considered the wedding. Another example could be an Indian man marrying a Christian woman. If both sides traditionally adhere their religion, it doesn’t matter when the state recognizes them as married – they have to go through their culture’s traditions. For her family, she must wear a white dress. For his, she must wear a sari. To say that once the wedding certificate is signed, a couple is married is a pretty severe blanket statement and excludes the two parties perspectives on what a marriage is. By the law, yes, they are married – but when does anyone particularly care what our government thinks?

  For us, we are having one of our judge friends present us the certificate that we’ll sign before we board our plane. We won’t exchange vows or be dressed up – just the legal “I do” and signing our name (Part 1) Sure, we now get tax benefits and power of attorney in the event of a medical crisis, but that’s not what I see as the foundation of our marriage. We spent weeks writing our wedding ceremony, pondering what marriage means to us. When we stand up in front of our friends and family and declare that we will support and hold one another until we die, that is when I will feel married. (Part 2)

  But not everybody is like us, and I recognize that. Fortunately, nobody on either side of our family gives a hoot and thinks we are being smart. Some people may be offended, but I probably wouldn’t invite them to my wedding, and they probably wouldn’t go if I did.

  I know this is an etiquette board, and etiquette is very helpful in situations like weddings. But etiquette itself is hardly black-and-white, and depends very heavily on the situation. The core of etiquette is making sure everybody is accommodated and feels welcomed. If nobody objects to a two-part ceremony, then both of these requirements are satisfied.

   

  Report5 Reply
• lyndausvi mod

  

  February 2014

  carringtonleigh said:

  Now… I’m new to The Knot, and so this is my first post. I looked through this thread out of curiosity a few days ago, and now feel that I should respond with my two cents… so be nice.

  I will be a bride who will be legally married and then having a separate ceremony.  We are getting married in Italy and found that the requirements to do so are too complex in a time when everything else for the wedding needs to be planned. France is even worse – requiring one of the parties to live in France for 40 days prior to the civil ceremony. We could have picked an easier place, but we are travelers to our core and got engaged in Rome.

  What a wedding means varies across cultures. In France (and Italy), it’s required to have a separate civil ceremony beforehand, and then you celebrate your religion in an additional ceremony. The first one is generally extremely small and takes place in an office (or a nice building, depending on the city). The second takes place in a church or a chapel. Many families then stick to the tradition of having an elaborate dinner party, not the traditional reception (although, as the world globalizes, that’s changing). The whole event is considered the wedding. Another example could be an Indian man marrying a Christian woman. If both sides traditionally adhere their religion, it doesn’t matter when the state recognizes them as married – they have to go through their culture’s traditions. For her family, she must wear a white dress. For his, she must wear a sari. To say that once the wedding certificate is signed, a couple is married is a pretty severe blanket statement and excludes the two parties perspectives on what a marriage is. By the law, yes, they are married – but when does anyone particularly care what our government thinks?

  For us, we are having one of our judge friends present us the certificate that we’ll sign before we board our plane. We won’t exchange vows or be dressed up – just the legal “I do” and signing our name (Part 1) Sure, we now get tax benefits and power of attorney in the event of a medical crisis, but that’s not what I see as the foundation of our marriage. We spent weeks writing our wedding ceremony, pondering what marriage means to us. When we stand up in front of our friends and family and declare that we will support and hold one another until we die, that is when I will feel married. (Part 2)

  But not everybody is like us, and I recognize that. Fortunately, nobody on either side of our family gives a hoot and thinks we are being smart. Some people may be offended, but I probably wouldn’t invite them to my wedding, and they probably wouldn’t go if I did.

  I know this is an etiquette board, and etiquette is very helpful in situations like weddings. But etiquette itself is hardly black-and-white, and depends very heavily on the situation. The core of etiquette is making sure everybody is accommodated and feels welcomed. If nobody objects to a two-part ceremony, then both of these requirements are satisfied.

   

  This is why I look at each situation on their own, not make a general statement.   I personally am well aware that different countries have different rules about religious vs legal ceremonies.

  
  

  My biggest issue is full disclosure.   Everyone in France and Italy know you have to have a legal ceremony separate than religious one.   Those two ceremonies are generally done within a very short period of time of each other.  No big deal.

  
  

  What I get pissed at is the American who gets the legal marriage in order to get the benefits months and sometimes years before the other ceremony without letting family and friends know they are already married.  I have no problem attending a religious ceremony after the legal one, even months later as long as the couple publicly recognizes they are indeed already married.   

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  

  Report9 Reply
• artbyallie mod

  

  February 2014

  @carringtonleigh, why would you proceed with a pretend wedding in a different country when their laws are 'too complex' for you to bother doing things their way? You won't be getting married there, so obviously you don't want it that much. If you really wanted to get married in Italy or France you would, y'know, get married there. Why not have your wedding in the U.S. and then go on a honeymoon to Italy/France? It just makes no sense.

  

  Report3 Reply
• Jells2dot0 mod

  

  February 2014

  artbyallie said:

  @carringtonleigh, why would you proceed with a pretend wedding in a different country when their laws are 'too complex' for you to bother doing things their way? You won't be getting married there, so obviously you don't want it that much. If you really wanted to get married in Italy or France you would, y'know, get married there. Why not have your wedding in the U.S. and then go on a honeymoon to Italy/Franc? It just makes no sense.

   

  Stuck in box: THIS. As someone who had a DW abroad, I was willing to go through the mess to make it legal because it was important me to do that. So, I don't understand the position of "I don't like the requirements, so I'm going to work around them because it's what I want, damn it!" At the end of the day, just don't lie to, or deceive your guests. I have been to Italy and even looked into an Italian wedding, as we enjoyed our time there. So, I know how much it costs to travel there and spend time there. It's not cheap, so your guests deserve to know the truth and what they are spending their money on.

   

  

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  Report3 Reply
• grumbledore member

  

  February 2014

  Sigh.

  
  

  

  Report13 Reply
• delujm0 member

  

  February 2014

  Honest question here...i understand that if you want to have a foreign wedding, a lot of times the procedures are difficult to get around.  Now, i personally would use that as a reason to not have a foreign wedding, or would actually go through the extra trouble of doing it the right way internationally, but i understand why some people still want to get married abroad and avoid the extra work by visiting the JOP before or after.

   

  What I'm wondering is: why is it always "i'll do the legal ceremony first in the US and then have my ceremony abroad?"  why wouldn't you just do the wedding abroad first and then deal with signing legal papers at the JOP when you get home?  i mean at least that way the guests who have likely spend thousands of dollars to travel to your wedding are actually seeing the FIRST of your ceremonies rather than the second, and at least you aren't actually married before your guests are there to witness it.  Am i crazy for making this point?

   

  I'm with @lyndausvi in that i find the above routine a lot less offensive than the whole "getting married legally one day and then waiting months or years to have the second ceremony while pretending to not actually be married" thing.  I would travel to a DW for a good friend even if they had to hit the JOP stateside before or after...however, when i say "before or after" i mean like "less than a week before, or sometime shortly after" the DW.  I would also expect that there would be no lying about the legally married status of the husband and wife at the forthcoming DW in this instance.

   

  If i paid money to travel to a DW that i thought was a real wedding, and then i found out that the "bride and groom" had been legally married at the JOP several months beforehand, and willfully hid that information from the guests, i would be livid.  It would take all of my willpower to not call the couple and demand a refund due to false advertising.  But since i doubt that demand would be enforcable, i'd probably just stop dealing with the couple as much as possible in the future.

  Report9 Reply
• Jells2dot0 mod

  

  February 2014

  delujm0 said:

  Honest question here...i understand that if you want to have a foreign wedding, a lot of times the procedures are difficult to get around.  Now, i personally would use that as a reason to not have a foreign wedding, or would actually go through the extra trouble of doing it the right way internationally, but i understand why some people still want to get married abroad and avoid the extra work by visiting the JOP before or after.

   

  What I'm wondering is: why is it always "i'll do the legal ceremony first in the US and then have my ceremony abroad?"  why wouldn't you just do the wedding abroad first and then deal with signing legal papers at the JOP when you get home?  i mean at least that way the guests who have likely spend thousands of dollars to travel to your wedding are actually seeing the FIRST of your ceremonies rather than the second, and at least you aren't actually married before your guests are there to witness it.  Am i crazy for making this point?

   

  I'm with @lyndausvi in that i find the above routine a lot less offensive than the whole "getting married legally one day and then waiting months or years to have the second ceremony while pretending to not actually be married" thing.  I would travel to a DW for a good friend even if they had to hit the JOP stateside before or after...however, when i say "before or after" i mean like "less than a week before, or sometime shortly after" the DW.  I would also expect that there would be no lying about the legally married status of the husband and wife at the forthcoming DW in this instance.

   

  If i paid money to travel to a DW that i thought was a real wedding, and then i found out that the "bride and groom" had been legally married at the JOP several months beforehand, and willfully hid that information from the guests, i would be livid.  It would take all of my willpower to not call the couple and demand a refund due to false advertising.  But since i doubt that demand would be enforcable, i'd probably just stop dealing with the couple as much as possible in the future.

  Not crazy at all! I believe I brought up the same thing in a similar post (I think on the DW board.) I don't really understand why you would want to get married internationally and not follow their regulations (except of course if the US doesn't recognize it, but the place is of great importance to you). However, if you do decide to go that route, why not just wait to make it legal back at home after the fact? I even considered that when planning my own wedding. I have always wanted to go to the Maldives, but I would not have been able to have my marriage legally recognized if we got married there. So, my option was to not go there at all or go there, have the ceremony, and fill out the paperwork after we got home. That way, our ceremony was the first exchange of our intent to marry, not a signature.

   

  

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  Report4 Reply
• antoto member

  

  February 2014

  One of my friends is in the Catholic/Indian wedding situations and will be holding two different weddings.  I think this is one of the exceptions where I am not bothered by the double wedding rule.  I have no idea when they will actually be legally making it official and I'm not asking - I know this whole thing is already stressful for them to please their families and pay homage to their cultures.

  
  

  This, to me, is extremely different from the bride who rushes into the JOP marriage, regrets it, lies to her family and friends, and then throws a huge fake wedding with all the bells and whistles.

  
  

  Report11 Reply
• ashleyep member

  

  February 2014

  antoto said:

  One of my friends is in the Catholic/Indian wedding situations and will be holding two different weddings.  I think this is one of the exceptions where I am not bothered by the double wedding rule.  I have no idea when they will actually be legally making it official and I'm not asking - I know this whole thing is already stressful for them to please their families and pay homage to their cultures.

  
  

  This, to me, is extremely different from the bride who rushes into the JOP marriage, regrets it, lies to her family and friends, and then throws a huge fake wedding with all the bells and whistles.

  But they're probably at least in the same weekend, no? They're not lying about it and they're not getting "legal married" months before their "wedding."

  

  Report1 Reply
• Inkdancer member

  

  February 2014

  antoto said:

  One of my friends is in the Catholic/Indian wedding situations and will be holding two different weddings.  I think this is one of the exceptions where I am not bothered by the double wedding rule.  I have no idea when they will actually be legally making it official and I'm not asking - I know this whole thing is already stressful for them to please their families and pay homage to their cultures.

  
  

  This, to me, is extremely different from the bride who rushes into the JOP marriage, regrets it, lies to her family and friends, and then throws a huge fake wedding with all the bells and whistles.

  I have no problem with this. Needing to have two ceremonies to accommodate two cultures is A-Okay in my book.
  
  I just get mad when people dismiss a JOP marriage as "not real."
  

  

  

  Report7 Reply
• antoto member

  

  February 2014

  ashleyep said:

  antoto said:

  One of my friends is in the Catholic/Indian wedding situations and will be holding two different weddings.  I think this is one of the exceptions where I am not bothered by the double wedding rule.  I have no idea when they will actually be legally making it official and I'm not asking - I know this whole thing is already stressful for them to please their families and pay homage to their cultures.

  
  

  This, to me, is extremely different from the bride who rushes into the JOP marriage, regrets it, lies to her family and friends, and then throws a huge fake wedding with all the bells and whistles.

  But they're probably at least in the same weekend, no? They're not lying about it and they're not getting "legal married" months before their "wedding."

  I'm not totally positive, but I think one will be in the bride's hometown and one will be in the groom's hometown. There is no lying or weirdness happening.  They got engaged almost 9 months ago and still have not hammered out all of the details yet.  I think they are working really hard on making sure it is a fair situation for guests. 

  
  

  Report0 Reply
• PrettyGirlLost member

  

  February 2014

  delujm0 said:

  Honest question here...i understand that if you want to have a foreign wedding, a lot of times the procedures are difficult to get around.  Now, i personally would use that as a reason to not have a foreign wedding, or would actually go through the extra trouble of doing it the right way internationally, but i understand why some people still want to get married abroad and avoid the extra work by visiting the JOP before or after.

   

  What I'm wondering is: why is it always "i'll do the legal ceremony first in the US and then have my ceremony abroad?"  why wouldn't you just do the wedding abroad first and then deal with signing legal papers at the JOP when you get home?  i mean at least that way the guests who have likely spend thousands of dollars to travel to your wedding are actually seeing the FIRST of your ceremonies rather than the second, and at least you aren't actually married before your guests are there to witness it.  Am i crazy for making this point?

   

  I'm with @lyndausvi in that i find the above routine a lot less offensive than the whole "getting married legally one day and then waiting months or years to have the second ceremony while pretending to not actually be married" thing.  I would travel to a DW for a good friend even if they had to hit the JOP stateside before or after...however, when i say "before or after" i mean like "less than a week before, or sometime shortly after" the DW.  I would also expect that there would be no lying about the legally married status of the husband and wife at the forthcoming DW in this instance.

   

  If i paid money to travel to a DW that i thought was a real wedding, and then i found out that the "bride and groom" had been legally married at the JOP several months beforehand, and willfully hid that information from the guests, i would be livid.  It would take all of my willpower to not call the couple and demand a refund due to false advertising.  But since i doubt that demand would be enforcable, i'd probably just stop dealing with the couple as much as possible in the future.

  Not only that but why not just have your wedding in the US if it is truly easier and then take a freaking honeymoon to whatever foreign country?
  
  FI and his family are of Irish descent and I have always wanted to go. . . so we are going there on our honeymoon.  None of us are actually Irish so all of our family and friends live here in the US.  It wouldn't make sense to have an Irish DW because very few ppl would be able to attend.
  

  
  "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
  
  

  
  

  Report2 Reply
• lyndausvi mod

  

  February 2014

  The PPD I went to overseas was at the bride's childhood Catholic Church.  It was important to them to be married in the Catholic church at that church.   The JOP was required for that country, getting it done in the states was easier logistically for visa reasons.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  

  Report1 Reply
• grumbledore member

  

  February 2014 edited February 2014

  People do the "legal wedding" first because 9 times out of 10, they are doing it for a tangible benefit (money, health insurance,housing, etc) that they want immediately. That's the main reason, imo, why this whole concept sucks. Don't take advantage of the system. And if you need to get married quickly to get these benefits, then freaking own it and move on.

  
  

  

  Report12 Reply
• Jells2dot0 mod

  

  February 2014

  lyndausvi said:

  The PPD I went to overseas was at the bride's childhood Catholic Church.  It was important to them to be married in the Catholic church at that church.   The JOP was required for that country, getting it done in the states was easier logistically for visa reasons.

   

  Stuck in box:

   

  Totally okay with this (not that my opinion matters) for several reasons:

   

  1) The destination has signficant meaning for not just the bride but her entire family.

   

  2) She would need to do two ceremonies anyway for cultural reasons.

   

  3) They did not lie to their guests. For whatever reason, this concept seems hard to grasp nowadays.

   

  

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  Report9 Reply
• lyndausvi mod

  

  February 2014

  
  

  Jells2dot0 said:

  lyndausvi said:

  The PPD I went to overseas was at the bride's childhood Catholic Church.  It was important to them to be married in the Catholic church at that church.   The JOP was required for that country, getting it done in the states was easier logistically for visa reasons.

   

  Stuck in box:

   

  Totally okay with this (not that my opinion matters) for several reasons:

   

  1) The destination has signficant meaning for not just the bride but her entire family.

   

  2) She would need to do two ceremonies anyway for cultural reasons.

   

  3) They did not lie to their guests. For whatever reason, this concept seems hard to grasp nowadays.

  This is one reason I don't jump on the anti-PPD bandwagon.  

  
  

  I'm not sure the situation with the new poster.  I would be okay if their Italian wedding was in a church then if it was a run of the mill non-reglious ceremony, if that makes sense.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  

  Report0 Reply
• grumbledore member

  

  February 2014

  If a couple has a religious ceremony that, for legitimate reasons, cannot be held simultaneously with the secular/official ceremony, I think this is fine, but those are very rare, especially in the United States.

  
  

  

  Report7 Reply
• crunchymamaof2 member

  

  February 2014

  While I still think ppd are silly, I'm in the just don't lie camp. It's such a simple concept that few seem to grasp. If you really feel that the piece of paper , that allows you to be married, is "meaningless" or "simple" than why bother with it at all? Several have stated that to them that piece of paper means nothing; that it's he vows and public ceremony that creates a marriage/wedding. If that's truly how you feel why not skip it then? Oh wait......because that silly paper DOES mean something. A big something. It affords you benefits that only MARRIED couples can receive. So you'd either be lying about your feelings, feel you're extremely entitled, or you'd simply be a cold bitch who doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

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

  Report16 Reply
• crunchymamaof2 member

  

  February 2014

  One last thing- for those complaining about grumbledore and others acting like they're the final authority on weddings I ask you the same question. What makes your opinion the right one? Show us one reputable source (I.e. Not someone who profits from the wedding industry) that says PPDs and lying to your guests is okay. Just one.

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

  Report14 Reply
• carringtonleigh member

  

  February 2014

  Woah! Lots of responses.

  
  

  I do not think lying is okay, and we won't be doing that. All of our families and guests are fully informed.

  
  

  My main point was that it's the whole experience, from the legal ceremony to whatever cultural ceremonies are involved. The two will be happening within days of each other. 

  
  

  We selected Italy because we got engaged during a private session with the Papal Conclave during the election of Pope Francis last year. We are returning to have our ceremony in St. Peter's.

  Report3 Reply
• PrettyGirlLost member

  

  February 2014

  carringtonleigh said:

  Woah! Lots of responses.

  
  

  I do not think lying is okay, and we won't be doing that. All of our families and guests are fully informed.

  
  

  My main point was that it's the whole experience, from the legal ceremony to whatever cultural ceremonies are involved. The two will be happening within days of each other. 

  
  

  We selected Italy because we got engaged during a private session with the Papal Conclave during the election of Pope Francis last year. We are returning to have our ceremony in St. Peter's.

  As a guest I would be ok with what you had planned and would do everything in my power to attend your wedding AND stay after because I always wanted to go to Italy :-)
  

  
  "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
  
  

  
  

  Report10 Reply
• delujm0 member

  

  February 2014

  carringtonleigh said:

  Woah! Lots of responses.

  
  

  I do not think lying is okay, and we won't be doing that. All of our families and guests are fully informed.

  
  

  My main point was that it's the whole experience, from the legal ceremony to whatever cultural ceremonies are involved. The two will be happening within days of each other. 

  
  

  We selected Italy because we got engaged during a private session with the Papal Conclave during the election of Pope Francis last year. We are returning to have our ceremony in St. Peter's.

  I want to be your friend so that i can come to your wedding.

   

  I find this reasonable, as you're not lying to anyone, and you're planning your legal ceremony for within a few days of your religious one.  i mean sure it would be better to get both done at once, but i know Italy has stringent requirements about this (i think you have to be there for 2-3 weeks before the wedding to make it legal).  i don't begrudge a person's decision to have a DW if they do it respectably.

   

  As long as you're honest and you realize that a lot of people won't be able to afford to go, have at it.

  Report6 Reply
• grumbledore member

  

  February 2014

  delujm0 said:

  carringtonleigh said:

  Woah! Lots of responses.

  
  

  I do not think lying is okay, and we won't be doing that. All of our families and guests are fully informed.

  
  

  My main point was that it's the whole experience, from the legal ceremony to whatever cultural ceremonies are involved. The two will be happening within days of each other. 

  
  

  We selected Italy because we got engaged during a private session with the Papal Conclave during the election of Pope Francis last year. We are returning to have our ceremony in St. Peter's.

  I want to be your friend so that i can come to your wedding.

   

  I find this reasonable, as you're not lying to anyone, and you're planning your legal ceremony for within a few days of your religious one.  i mean sure it would be better to get both done at once, but i know Italy has stringent requirements about this (i think you have to be there for 2-3 weeks before the wedding to make it legal).  i don't begrudge a person's decision to have a DW if they do it respectably.

   

  As long as you're honest and you realize that a lot of people won't be able to afford to go, have at it.

  
  Precisely this.

  
  

  

  Report2 Reply