Getting married before a DW?

Sars06 · February 2014

One of my best friends is getting married this weekend. The wedding is in another country, so my fiance and I are traveling quite a distance to attend. Well, I opened up the paper yesterday morning to see their wedding announcement! They were married "officially" in a civil ceremony this past weekend and had the announcement published.

Is this common? For couples who got married out of the US, were you required to have a civil ceremony in the US in order to make it legal? I thought that the US generally recognized marriages that took place in other countries - is that not always the case? I am just feeling disappointed that I wasn't there for the real thing.

To be clear, I am very happy for my friend - she and her husband are wonderful people, and I love them. I've just been looking forward to seeing them get married, and I feel like this takes the wind out of my sails a bit. I'm still excited to celebrate with them, but I'm bummed that I won't actually be seeing them get married. There's something so special about that moment when it's really official!

s-aries8990 · February 2014

Is it common? Yes.

Is it rude to your guests? ABSO-FREAKING-LOUTELY.

There is some leg-work associated with having your marriage recognized by the US when it is performed in another country, but thousands of couples do it every year.

BMoreBride6 · February 2014

I wish we could sticky this as proof to all PPDers that your guests, even your best friends, DO feel let down and duped by this!

mrsetwinmiller2b · February 2014

Some countries have a requirement regarding how much time one has to spend in the country prior to being married in a legally binding ceremony there. I also, in the course of researching a destination wedding, found out that some countries have a waiting period that must be observed after a divorce. And Mexico specifically was going to require up to two months to have the marriage certificate translated officially for registration of the marriage in the United States. Perhaps these were conditions that just didn't work for your friend?

That being said, I can understand why this would sting a little. I'm personally curious about why they didn't have their DW ceremony first and then be married in a civil ceremony after their return. I'm glad that you're still happy to celebrate with them, though!

LondonLisa · February 2014

It was very rude of your friends to do this. If one does not want to go through the hoops of getting married in a foreign country, one should not have a DW. Yes, marriages in other countries are legal in the US, but in some cases they have to jump through some hoops to do it (but not impossible). Some people are unwilling (read: too lazy) to go through the formalities of that country but feel they are entitled to a "wedding" in that country. How hurtful to find this out after spending money to witness their marriage. I completely agree with you about missing that moment where it is official. Your friends actions are rude, thoughtless and selfish.

Lurkers: here is a prime example of friends being upset and hurt by PPD destination weddings/ "paper weddings" etc but not saying anything to your face about it. Don't put people you care about in this position!

Sars06 · February 2014

I just want reiterate that my friend and her husband are literally the sweetest people on earth and would never do anything ungracious, so I really don't think this is AWish or a PPD or anything like that. I just don't understand why it was necessary.

Sars06 · February 2014

mrsetwinmiller2b said:

Some countries have a requirement regarding how much time one has to spend in the country prior to being married in a legally binding ceremony there. I also, in the course of researching a destination wedding, found out that some countries have a waiting period that must be observed after a divorce. And Mexico specifically was going to require up to two months to have the marriage certificate translated officially for registration of the marriage in the United States. Perhaps these were conditions that just didn't work for your friend?

That being said, I can understand why this would sting a little. I'm personally curious about why they didn't have their DW ceremony first and then be married in a civil ceremony after their return. I'm glad that you're still happy to celebrate with them, though!

For some reason, I would feel a lot better about that. Now it feels like the exciting part already happened and I just missed it.

LondonLisa · February 2014

I'm sure they are very nice, but these actions are very thoughtless. This is literally the definition of a pretty princess day. It might be naivete instead of malice, but it is still nasty and hurtful nonetheless.

With regards to the legal requirements like Mexico or other countries, they should have not have chosen to get married there if they could not do it legally. Why have a fake wedding somewhere you cannot be married??

climbingsingle · February 2014

To all of you brides that are planning PPD - let this post be a warning to you. Lying to your guests is wrong. They will find out. And when they do find out, they'll be upset.

Sars06 · February 2014

LondonLisa said:

I'm sure they are very nice, but these actions are very thoughtless. This is literally the definition of a pretty princess day. It might be naivete instead of malice, but it is still nasty and hurtful nonetheless.

With regards to the legal requirements like Mexico or other countries, they should have not have chosen to get married there if they could not do it legally. Why have a fake wedding somewhere you cannot be married??

They have family there. Also, it will be a religious ceremony while the one that already happened was a civil ceremony. I don't know if that makes a difference in how people view it. My fiance and I are having only a civil ceremony, so I consider the legal part to be equally important. I know not everyone feels that way.

cowgirl8238 · February 2014

I;m with you in that the ceremony they are now having will not be near as special since they are legally married. I am not sure why they decided to publish the announcement in the paper before their "wedding". That seems the most strange to me. Anyway, go and have a good time, it sounds like you will

LondonLisa · February 2014

In almost all countries that require a civil and religious ceremony to be separate events, they both need to happen in that same country so that is not a reason. In North America a civil/ religious ceremony are the same thing. Your feelings are perfectly validated! The point in which you are married is your wedding day regardless if this is in a church or a courthouse. Their marriage date on all legal documents would be the courthouse wedding, not this PPD you are paying to see.

I fully understand they have family there (I have family all over the world, so I know it is hard to plan weddings from abroad) but they should have made it very clear that they were planning on getting married beforehand and just had a wedding celebration in this foreign country (not a fake wedding redo).

If it was THAT important to be married in this foreign country, they should have done it properly and actually gotten married there. Especially if they have asked people to pay money to join.

I'm sure they are very sweet, but at the end of the day, their actions said this to you: Spend quite a bit of your money to see my fake wedding that I lied to you about since I will already be married.

grumbledore · February 2014

The whole point of going to a wedding is to watch two people get married. I just cannot and doubt I will ever be able to wrap my head around this.

theartistformerlyknownas · February 2014

I was in a DW for a friend who was born in another country and now lives here. Her home-country priest required them to be married here before he would perform their religious ceremony at home. She had a party here for people who asked to celebrate with her but couldn't make the trip (which I also attended) and had her Catholic wedding the following week at her church in Brazil. It didn't bother me a bit. People seemed to understand that while the civil ceremony here was required for their pending citizenship, their religious ceremony at home was what they needed to consider themselves "married." Civil ceremony made her married in the eyes of Uncle Sam; Catholic ceremony made her married in the eyes of God. It wasn't "fake" to them or to us just because religious and governmental priorities clashed. If we only go by the political act of marriage, that happens when you sign the marriage license and most of us don't witness that anyway.

Jen4948 · February 2014

Lolo8383 said:

I was in a DW for a friend who was born in another country and now lives here. Her home-country priest required them to be married here before he would perform their religious ceremony at home. She had a party here for people who asked to celebrate with her but couldn't make the trip (which I also attended) and had her Catholic wedding the following week at her church in Brazil. It didn't bother me a bit. People seemed to understand that while the civil ceremony here was required for their pending citizenship, their religious ceremony at home was what they needed to consider themselves "married." Civil ceremony made her married in the eyes of Uncle Sam; Catholic ceremony made her married in the eyes of God. It wasn't "fake" to them or to us just because religious and governmental priorities clashed. If we only go by the political act of marriage, that happens when you sign the marriage license and most of us don't witness that anyway.

Doesn't matter what makes them "feel" married-the first wedding is the one that makes you "married" per etiquette-whether or not the couple want to consider themselves "married." If they want to claim the legal, religious, social, or whatever benefits of marriage, then it is rude and fraudulent to have a secret legal ceremony to do so while pretending not to be "married" so they can have a big bells-whistles-party "wedding" later.

Sars06 · February 2014

grumbledore said:

The whole point of going to a wedding is to watch two people get married. I just cannot and doubt I will ever be able to wrap my head around this.

This is exactly how I feel! I appreciate the party and everything, but the time when the couple actually gets married is the most important part.

Sars06 · February 2014

Lolo8383 said:

If we only go by the political act of marriage, that happens when you sign the marriage license and most of us don't witness that anyway.

That's not true - the act of marriage happens when you exchange vows and your officiant declares you married. You can sign the paper, but until the officiant marries you, you are not married.

PrettyGirlLost · February 2014

Sars06 said:

show previous quotes

Lolo8383 said:

If we only go by the political act of marriage, that happens when you sign the marriage license and most of us don't witness that anyway.

That's not true - the act of marriage happens when you exchange vows and your officiant declares you married. You can sign the paper, but until the officiant marries you, you are not married.

Yeah but him declaring you married doesn't make you legally married. Everyone signing and filing the license makes you married. So until your marriage license is filed, you are not really married.

Sars06 · February 2014

Jen4948 said:

show previous quotes

Lolo8383 said:

I was in a DW for a friend who was born in another country and now lives here. Her home-country priest required them to be married here before he would perform their religious ceremony at home. She had a party here for people who asked to celebrate with her but couldn't make the trip (which I also attended) and had her Catholic wedding the following week at her church in Brazil. It didn't bother me a bit. People seemed to understand that while the civil ceremony here was required for their pending citizenship, their religious ceremony at home was what they needed to consider themselves "married." Civil ceremony made her married in the eyes of Uncle Sam; Catholic ceremony made her married in the eyes of God. It wasn't "fake" to them or to us just because religious and governmental priorities clashed. If we only go by the political act of marriage, that happens when you sign the marriage license and most of us don't witness that anyway.

Doesn't matter what makes them "feel" married-the first wedding is the one that makes you "married" per etiquette-whether or not the couple want to consider themselves "married." If they want to claim the legal, religious, social, or whatever benefits of marriage, then it is rude and fraudulent to have a secret legal ceremony to do so while pretending not to be "married" so they can have a big bells-whistles-party "wedding" later.

It bothers me a lot when people say they don't "feel" married after the civil ceremony, as though the 1,000+ civil rights associated with marriage mean nothing. That's fine if you think legal marriage is just useless paperwork - but don't take advantage of those rights and benefits without really considering what they mean to the millions of Americans who don't have them.

Sars06 · February 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

show previous quotes

Sars06 said:

Lolo8383 said:

If we only go by the political act of marriage, that happens when you sign the marriage license and most of us don't witness that anyway.

That's not true - the act of marriage happens when you exchange vows and your officiant declares you married. You can sign the paper, but until the officiant marries you, you are not married.

Yeah but him declaring you married doesn't make you legally married. Everyone signing and filing the license makes you married. So until your marriage license is filed, you are not really married.

That's true, but the officiant won't file it unless he marries you. If you sign it before the ceremony and then run from the altar, the officiant isn't going to file your marriage license. Anyway, my point is just that you do have to exchange some sort of vows in order to be married. And that exchange of vows constitutes a wedding.

Jells2dot0 · February 2014

s-aries8990 said:

Is it common? Yes.

Is it rude to your guests? ABSO-FREAKING-LOUTELY.

There is some leg-work associated with having your marriage recognized by the US when it is performed in another country, but thousands of couples do it every year.

There was really no leg work required for me to have my Australian marrige legally recognized here in the US. I just took my marriage cert to the Social Security office, had my name changed, and voila!

That being said, I'd like to know more about where they couple is having their religious ceremony. I still think they could have waited to do the civil ceremony until AFTER their relgious ceremony, but the country where they are getting married may have required two separate ceremonies. Again, doesn't make it right that they did the civil ceremony first and that they didn't tell guests upfront what their plans were for this.

edit- spelling

Sars06 · February 2014

Jells2dot0 said:

show previous quotes

s-aries8990 said:

Is it common? Yes.

Is it rude to your guests? ABSO-FREAKING-LOUTELY.

There is some leg-work associated with having your marriage recognized by the US when it is performed in another country, but thousands of couples do it every year.

There was really no leg work required for me to have my Australian marrige legally recognized here in the US. I just took my marriage cert to the Social Security office, had my name changed, and voila!

That being said, I'd like to know more about where they couple is having their religious ceremony. I still think they could have waited to do the civil ceremony until AFTER their relgious ceremony, but the country where they are getting married may have required two separate ceremonies. Again, doesn't make it right that they did the civil ceremony first and that they didn't tell guests upfront what their plans were for this.

edit- spelling

They are having a Catholic ceremony. I'm just going to assume they were required to do it this way, but I wish I had gotten a heads up before reading about it in the paper.

PrettyGirlLost · February 2014

Sars06 said:

show previous quotes

Jells2dot0 said:

s-aries8990 said:

Is it common? Yes.

Is it rude to your guests? ABSO-FREAKING-LOUTELY.

There is some leg-work associated with having your marriage recognized by the US when it is performed in another country, but thousands of couples do it every year.

There was really no leg work required for me to have my Australian marrige legally recognized here in the US. I just took my marriage cert to the Social Security office, had my name changed, and voila!

That being said, I'd like to know more about where they couple is having their religious ceremony. I still think they could have waited to do the civil ceremony until AFTER their relgious ceremony, but the country where they are getting married may have required two separate ceremonies. Again, doesn't make it right that they did the civil ceremony first and that they didn't tell guests upfront what their plans were for this.

edit- spelling

They are having a Catholic ceremony. I'm just going to assume they were required to do it this way, but I wish I had gotten a heads up before reading about it in the paper.

Like a full on wedding mass as if they are not already married?

I always wonder about this. . . are they lying to the church and priest about already being married? Does the church typically perform full on wedding masses to people that are already married? I thought they would just do a short convalidation after a regular mass?

Sars06 · February 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

show previous quotes

Sars06 said:

Jells2dot0 said:

s-aries8990 said:

Is it common? Yes.

Is it rude to your guests? ABSO-FREAKING-LOUTELY.

There is some leg-work associated with having your marriage recognized by the US when it is performed in another country, but thousands of couples do it every year.

There was really no leg work required for me to have my Australian marrige legally recognized here in the US. I just took my marriage cert to the Social Security office, had my name changed, and voila!

That being said, I'd like to know more about where they couple is having their religious ceremony. I still think they could have waited to do the civil ceremony until AFTER their relgious ceremony, but the country where they are getting married may have required two separate ceremonies. Again, doesn't make it right that they did the civil ceremony first and that they didn't tell guests upfront what their plans were for this.

edit- spelling

They are having a Catholic ceremony. I'm just going to assume they were required to do it this way, but I wish I had gotten a heads up before reading about it in the paper.

Like a full on wedding mass as if they are not already married?

I always wonder about this. . . are they lying to the church and priest about already being married? Does the church typically perform full on wedding masses to people that are already married? I thought they would just do a short convalidation after a regular mass?

I think they are doing a full on mass. I'm not Catholic, so I don't know how it works - does the priest care if they were already married in a courthouse in the US?

Jells2dot0 · February 2014

Sars06 said:
show previous quotes

PrettyGirlLost said:

Sars06 said:

Jells2dot0 said:

s-aries8990 said:

Is it common? Yes.

Is it rude to your guests? ABSO-FREAKING-LOUTELY.

There is some leg-work associated with having your marriage recognized by the US when it is performed in another country, but thousands of couples do it every year.

There was really no leg work required for me to have my Australian marrige legally recognized here in the US. I just took my marriage cert to the Social Security office, had my name changed, and voila!

That being said, I'd like to know more about where they couple is having their religious ceremony. I still think they could have waited to do the civil ceremony until AFTER their relgious ceremony, but the country where they are getting married may have required two separate ceremonies. Again, doesn't make it right that they did the civil ceremony first and that they didn't tell guests upfront what their plans were for this.

edit- spelling

They are having a Catholic ceremony. I'm just going to assume they were required to do it this way, but I wish I had gotten a heads up before reading about it in the paper.

Like a full on wedding mass as if they are not already married?

I always wonder about this. . . are they lying to the church and priest about already being married? Does the church typically perform full on wedding masses to people that are already married? I thought they would just do a short convalidation after a regular mass?

I think they are doing a full on mass. I'm not Catholic, so I don't know how it works - does the priest care if they were already married in a courthouse in the US?

Typically, the priest will just hold a convalidation, which is not a full up ceremony. However, that is why I asked WHERE this is being held. That way, we can better understand the country's rules. It can vary quite a bit from country to country.

Sars06 · February 2014

Jells2dot0 said:

show previous quotes

PrettyGirlLost said:

Sars06 said:

Jells2dot0 said:

s-aries8990 said:

Is it common? Yes.

Is it rude to your guests? ABSO-FREAKING-LOUTELY.

There is some leg-work associated with having your marriage recognized by the US when it is performed in another country, but thousands of couples do it every year.

There was really no leg work required for me to have my Australian marrige legally recognized here in the US. I just took my marriage cert to the Social Security office, had my name changed, and voila!

That being said, I'd like to know more about where they couple is having their religious ceremony. I still think they could have waited to do the civil ceremony until AFTER their relgious ceremony, but the country where they are getting married may have required two separate ceremonies. Again, doesn't make it right that they did the civil ceremony first and that they didn't tell guests upfront what their plans were for this.

edit- spelling

They are having a Catholic ceremony. I'm just going to assume they were required to do it this way, but I wish I had gotten a heads up before reading about it in the paper.

Like a full on wedding mass as if they are not already married?

I always wonder about this. . . are they lying to the church and priest about already being married? Does the church typically perform full on wedding masses to people that are already married? I thought they would just do a short convalidation after a regular mass?

I think they are doing a full on mass. I'm not Catholic, so I don't know how it works - does the priest care if they were already married in a courthouse in the US?
Typically, the priest will just hold a convalidation, which is not a full up ceremony. However, that is why I asked WHERE this is being held. That way, we can better understand the country's rules. It can vary quite a bit from country to country.

Oh I see what you were asking. I'd rather not say which country because I would feel terrible if she found this, but it's in South America. I'm sure it was just much easier for them to do it this way and I don't begrudge them, but I wish I had known.

Jells2dot0 · February 2014

Sars06 said:

show previous quotes
Oh I see what you were asking. I'd rather not say which country because I would feel terrible if she found this, but it's in South America. I'm sure it was just much easier for them to do it this way and I don't begrudge them, but I wish I had known.

Regardless of what the country's rules are, I see why you are upset. So. America is definitely a long trip to make for a wedding.

edit spelling

PrettyGirlLost · February 2014

Jells2dot0 said:

show previous quotes

Sars06 said:

Oh I see what you were asking. I'd rather not say which country because I would feel terrible if she found this, but it's in South America. I'm sure it was just much easier for them to do it this way and I don't begrudge them, but I wish I had known.
Regardless of what the country's rules are, see why you are upset. So America is definitely a long trip to make for a wedding.

Which isn't even a wedding now.

I went to an OOT PPD with a full on Catholic Mass here in the sates- it was only 2hrs away and the couple was upfront about the fact that they were already married. I am not sure if the church knew they were already married, because I doubt they would allow them to have a full mass as if they were not.

However, I doubt I would take vacation time and spend all of that money to go to a PPD in South America. I absolutely would not this year since I am saving vacation time and money for my won wedding and honeymoon.

LadyMillil · February 2014

PrettyGirlLost said:

show previous quotes

However, I doubt I would take vacation time and spend all of that money to go to a PPD in South America. I absolutely would not this year since I am saving vacation time and money for my won wedding and honeymoon.

To the bolded: This could be a friendship ending move. I had a friend who had a DW and made a HUGE deal about me not attending. I was putting myself through university and couldn't afford to go, and couldn't afford to miss out on several days of pay. After several digs about me not coming to her "wedding", she let it go, but she made me feel like I was a horrible friend for not coming. A couple months later I found out she got legally married at home before the DW because she didn't want to deal with the paperwork to have her marriage recognized here. I was furious that she lied to me, made me feel terrible for not attending the "wedding" and that she expected me to spend a ton of money I didn't have so that I could attend her PPD on a beach. That ended our friendship

AroundTheBlock · February 2014

cmfarr said:
show previous quotes

I doubt I would take vacation time and spend all of that money to go to ... South America.

To the bolded: This could be a friendship ending move. I had a friend who had a DW and made a HUGE deal about me not attending.

The decision to have a party -- "real" wedding or not -- in another country, or even just in another city, ought to be made in the full expectation of receiving regrets due to "inability to travel". "Inability to travel" was always a valid excuse for regrets, even in the early twentieth century when a wedding invitation was considered as nearly a command performance. "Inability to travel" includes everything from not being able to take your oxygen-machine on a plane to not being willing to incur the expense. And anyone who makes the choice to host a foreign party, and then drops her friends who decline the invitation, is a friend who is not likely to be missed.

RebeccaB88 · February 2014

The situation you're in would very likely end my friendship with this person, or at the very least, cool it off considerably. They may be sweet and just simply too naive, uninformed, and stupid to understand how rude they are being to their friends and loved ones, but nevertheless, it's not an excuse. They are being rude anyway. I would in no uncertain terms tell her that I was making the trip to see her get married, but since they are already married and lied to me about it, that I would not be making the trip as planned and was no longer interested in maintaining the friendship. Period. Then I'd change my plane tickets to a destination I wanted to go to (if I couldn't get them refunded) and go have a good, lie-free vacation.

Getting married before a DW?

Re: Getting married before a DW?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards