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.
Not in my state…when yo get your license you sign the paperwork. For then on it is legal when the person with the authority says "but the power vested in me by the state of Ohio, I now pronounce you man and wife." Then you are legally married, the B&G never sign anything after filing for the license. If the officiant never files it then the state would not have record of your legal marriage.
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.
Don't get me wrong, I get why having a Destination PPD is rude, but your post made me LOL.
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.
Not in my state…when yo get your license you sign the paperwork. For then on it is legal when the person with the authority says "but the power vested in me by the state of Ohio, I now pronounce you man and wife." Then you are legally married, the B&G never sign anything after filing for the license. If the officiant never files it then the state would not have record of your legal marriage.
That's the same difference, though, just in a reverse order. My point was that the filing of the license makes the marriage legal.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
What's interesting to me is that the couple is clearly not trying to hide it, as evidenced by the announcement in the local paper. So, why were they not upfront with everyone from the start? As pp mentioned, are they just that naive? Do they really think that what makes it official is the religious ceremony? Or was the announcement a total "oops" by the parents?
What's interesting to me is that the couple is clearly not trying to hide it, as evidenced by the announcement in the local paper. So, why were they not upfront with everyone from the start? As pp mentioned, are they just that naive? Do they really think that what makes it official is the religious ceremony? Or was the announcement a total "oops" by the parents?
Maybe a combo, but I would still be disappointed if I had made plans to attend and might rethink it now. . . only because South America is not high on my vacation priority list.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
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.
Not in my state…when yo get your license you sign the paperwork. For then on it is legal when the person with the authority says "but the power vested in me by the state of Ohio, I now pronounce you man and wife." Then you are legally married, the B&G never sign anything after filing for the license. If the officiant never files it then the state would not have record of your legal marriage.
There is a difference between filing for a license and actually getting married in the courthouse.
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.
Not in my state…when yo get your license you sign the paperwork. For then on it is legal when the person with the authority says "but the power vested in me by the state of Ohio, I now pronounce you man and wife." Then you are legally married, the B&G never sign anything after filing for the license. If the officiant never files it then the state would not have record of your legal marriage.
There is a difference between filing for a license and actually getting married in the courthouse.
I'm not talking about applying for the license, I was talking about actually filing the license after your ceremony- as in sending it into whatever government office after it has been signed by the couple and officiant, and then having that office officially record it. That is what makes your marriage legally valid- the local/state government having a record of the marriage and license.
You can apply for the license, get it, have your ceremony, sign the license and then never send it in to the local authorities. . . in which case you won't legally be married.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
All I'm saying is I'm not about to accuse people of lying because they place different values on various pronouncements of their own marriage. Civil ceremony is all you need, and that's what's most important to you? Awesome, let's have cake. Place your faith's requirements above those of your state/country/etc? Awesome too, let's have cake. Lying to your friends, however, is never cool. Neither is marrying for convenience and then having a big fake wedding when you can afford it/lose the baby weight/can get your perfect location. Was worth it to you to get married now for XYZ reason, but "family still deserves to see me in a big white dress" or "it means so much to my grandma to see me get married" - so much no. Or if this friend is still getting married by a civil servant of some sort in the DW but just wants a PPD on the beach - no. If it was worth that much to you to have "your day," then you'd wait. But I understand when the legal side and the religious side do not perfectly align and I think as far as they're honest about it, I'd let it go. OP asked for opinions, and that's mine.
My friends just got married in St. Lucia. They had to be on the island for several days before the ceremony in order to make it legal there. So, even though that meant that they had to travel to be there before the wedding and therefore didn't have enough vacation time left to stay as long after the wedding as they would have liked (so that it would be a more traditional honeymoon), they got legally married in St. Lucia and then had absolutely zero trouble with the US Government when they got home. My friend was able to change her name at teh social security office without even a question right after she got back.
To me it really depends on HOW difficult it is to just do it legally in the other country. If the reasoning is "well we want to be there for a week AFTER the ceremony, not before" that isn't cool - it's putting yourselves before your guests, and getting married at the courthouse for the sake of having a traditional honeymoon (though i'd overlook this if the courthouse wedding happened AFTER the DW, so that at least the guests were seeing your FIRST ceremony rather than your second one).
However, if the other country is someplace like Italy, where you have to be in residence there for three weeks before the ceremony, and there is a very good reason that you want to get married there, I'd understand not going through the trouble to get it legalized in Italy - most people don't have 3-4 weeks of vacation they can take all at once to get that done. But again, i'd much prefer that the courthouse wedding happen after the DW if i'm a guest.
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.
Not in my state…when yo get your license you sign the paperwork. For then on it is legal when the person with the authority says "but the power vested in me by the state of Ohio, I now pronounce you man and wife." Then you are legally married, the B&G never sign anything after filing for the license. If the officiant never files it then the state would not have record of your legal marriage.
There is a difference between filing for a license and actually getting married in the courthouse.
I'm not talking about applying for the license, I was talking about actually filing the license after your ceremony- as in sending it into whatever government office after it has been signed by the couple and officiant, and then having that office officially record it. That is what makes your marriage legally valid- the local/state government having a record of the marriage and license.
You can apply for the license, get it, have your ceremony, sign the license and then never send it in to the local authorities. . . in which case you won't legally be married.
*STUCK IN BOX*
Based on that theory, no one actually has their anniversary on the day they are married. Your marriage is VALID the date that the officiant performs the ceremony. It may take a little while for the paperwork to be completed, but the date on that paperwork is the date of your marriage. No company that requires marriage to receive 'benefits' (ie employer, gov't etc) will request the date of the filing of the paperwork, but rather the date of the marriage.
Yes, that license needs to be filed in order to be considered valid, but the date of filing is NOT the date of validity. Theres a bit of a grace period.
I went to a PPD in Europe. That country requires a legal ceremony. If you want a religious one, then you have to have another in addition. They also had visa issues so they got married in the states first.
I personally didn't have a problem with the situation. The legal one was important for some reasons, the Catholic one for others. I was able to recognize they need for both ceremonies.
I admit had the Europe ceremony just been a run of the mill non-relgious ceremony instead of a Catholic one I would not feel the same. Maybe because I was raised Catholic and understand the importance of having a wedding recognized by the church. Being from Europe and her entire family being there I also understood why they wanted that over there instead of the states.
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.
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.
Not in my state…when yo get your license you sign the paperwork. For then on it is legal when the person with the authority says "but the power vested in me by the state of Ohio, I now pronounce you man and wife." Then you are legally married, the B&G never sign anything after filing for the license. If the officiant never files it then the state would not have record of your legal marriage.
There is a difference between filing for a license and actually getting married in the courthouse.
I'm not talking about applying for the license, I was talking about actually filing the license after your ceremony- as in sending it into whatever government office after it has been signed by the couple and officiant, and then having that office officially record it. That is what makes your marriage legally valid- the local/state government having a record of the marriage and license.
You can apply for the license, get it, have your ceremony, sign the license and then never send it in to the local authorities. . . in which case you won't legally be married.
Based on that theory, no one actually has their anniversary on the day they are married. Your marriage is VALID the date that the officiant performs the ceremony. It may take a little while for the paperwork to be completed, but the date on that paperwork is the date of your marriage. No company that requires marriage to receive 'benefits' (ie employer, gov't etc) will request the date of the filing of the paperwork, but rather the date of the marriage.
Yes, that license needs to be filed in order to be considered valid, but the date of filing is NOT the date of validity. Theres a bit of a grace period.
No, not on the day they are officially recorded as married, I guess!
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
@PrettyGirlLost my point being that you don't find out from the government the date that the paperwork was filed and consider that the date of your marriage. There is a grace period for the paperwork to become 'official' but your marriage date is still the date the ceremony signing that paperwork was done.
If the country is one of the ones where having a religious ceremony requires you to first have a legal ceremony I can kind of understand it. But they are choosing to have a DW when they could have had the ceremony done in the states and meet both the legal and religious requirements in one. This is what I do not understand. If the religious ceremony is the important part why are they having a DW to have it.
@PrettyGirlLost my point being that you don't find out from the government the date that the paperwork was filed and consider that the date of your marriage. There is a grace period for the paperwork to become 'official' but your marriage date is still the date the ceremony signing that paperwork was done.
Yes, I get that. But everything has to be filed and officially recorded for the marriage to be legal, that is my point.
And I brought it up because too often people poo poo the seriousness of having a legally valid marriage and use the claim, "Oh well the religious/spiritual/sentimental ceremony where we says our vows is all that matters." And they use that as a rationale to have a PPD.
Sorry, but no. Both legal validity and religious/spiritual sentimentality are important.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
@PrettyGirlLost my point being that you don't find out from the government the date that the paperwork was filed and consider that the date of your marriage. There is a grace period for the paperwork to become 'official' but your marriage date is still the date the ceremony signing that paperwork was done.
You're splitting hairs here. The officiant needs to submit the signed paperwork, and once he does that the marriage is legal and valid. Yes things can happen that interrupt the process but it doesn't change your wedding date. It's the officiant declaring you married AND signing/submitting the license that makes your wedding valid. If the paperwork says you were married on 8/13/13 but the clerk doesn't input the info until 8/20 it doesn't change a thing. You'll just have to wait a bit longer to receive your certificate and to possibly get benefits. That simple piece of paper means everything (except maybe to your church)
Eta: just re read....I guess I'm agreeing with you. @prettygirllost I get what you're saying but as long as that paperwork is sent in after the wedding was performed the couple is considered married in our society. But yes you need the actual certificate to file for benefits, though I don't think that means the couple isn't married until they receive it. If that we're the case shouldn't the ceremony be held the day the certificate is received? I mean they'd have to do things backwards for that to be the case....couple files, officiant signs, then once certificate is received a ceremony is held. But it doesn't work like that. That paper does mean everything, as long as it's filed. The few days in between shouldn't make a difference as long as everything was done properly.
After 6 years and 2 boys, finally tying the knot on October 27th, 2013!
@PrettyGirlLost my point being that you don't find out from the government the date that the paperwork was filed and consider that the date of your marriage. There is a grace period for the paperwork to become 'official' but your marriage date is still the date the ceremony signing that paperwork was done.
You're splitting hairs here. The officiant needs to submit the signed paperwork, and once he does that the marriage is legal and valid. Yes things can happen that interrupt the process but it doesn't change your wedding date. It's the officiant declaring you married AND signing/submitting the license that makes your wedding valid. If the paperwork says you were married on 8/13/13 but the clerk doesn't input the info until 8/20 it doesn't change a thing. You'll just have to wait a bit longer to receive your certificate and to possibly get benefits. That simple piece of paper means everything (except maybe to your church)
Thank you! That was my point!!!
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
@PrettyGirlLost my point being that you don't find out from the government the date that the paperwork was filed and consider that the date of your marriage. There is a grace period for the paperwork to become 'official' but your marriage date is still the date the ceremony signing that paperwork was done.
You're splitting hairs here. The officiant needs to submit the signed paperwork, and once he does that the marriage is legal and valid. Yes things can happen that interrupt the process but it doesn't change your wedding date. It's the officiant declaring you married AND signing/submitting the license that makes your wedding valid. If the paperwork says you were married on 8/13/13 but the clerk doesn't input the info until 8/20 it doesn't change a thing. You'll just have to wait a bit longer to receive your certificate and to possibly get benefits. That simple piece of paper means everything (except maybe to your church)
Thank you! That was my point!!!
lol, okay so we were both making the same point and I was just being an idiot about the way I said it . The way I was reading your original post was that the marriage date isn't what was relevant but that the filing of the paperwork was the date of the validity of the marriage. Now I feel dumb.
Yes of course, the paperwork is the part that legally says 'you're married'.
Destination weddings that are PPDs aren't destination weddings. They're parties...everyone is already married.
Something just doesn't add up about this post. It makes no sense to try to keep something discreet then announce it in one's local newspaper. OP, perhaps they never intended the civil ceremony to be on the DL in the first place and always intended for it to be a public fact? You and the couple may have differing opinions on the subject, but that doesn't mean they didn't have some legit reason to make decisions they found best for their situation. I think at worst this is a case of miscommunication. There's nothing to be disappointed about, your travel experience will still be the same. Unless you're now going to shade it, and in which case, change your plans and decline the invite, that would be best for everyone involved if you aren't going to enjoy yourself.
I'm mostly confused as to why she had it published. Even if you are being lazy and did the paper work right before or after, wouldn't you want the out of country ceremony to be what you consider the wedding?
I'm mostly confused as to why she had it published. Even if you are being lazy and did the paper work right before or after, wouldn't you want the out of country ceremony to be what you consider the wedding?
Yes, of course you would, which is why something just doesn't add up about this post, imo.
Something just doesn't add up about this post. It makes no sense to try to keep something discreet then announce it in one's local newspaper. OP, perhaps they never intended the civil ceremony to be on the DL in the first place and always intended for it to be a public fact? You and the couple may have differing opinions on the subject, but that doesn't mean they didn't have some legit reason to make decisions they found best for their situation. I think at worst this is a case of miscommunication. There's nothing to be disappointed about, your travel experience will still be the same. Unless you're now going to shade it, and in which case, change your plans and decline the invite, that would be best for everyone involved if you aren't going to enjoy yourself.
Says the wife who is making her guests fly to Mexico to witness a fake re-do wedding. OP has every reason to be upset with the couple who asked her to witness their wedding in another country, only to realize that they are already married.
Something just doesn't add up about this post. It makes no sense to try to keep something discreet then announce it in one's local newspaper. OP, perhaps they never intended the civil ceremony to be on the DL in the first place and always intended for it to be a public fact? You and the couple may have differing opinions on the subject, but that doesn't mean they didn't have some legit reason to make decisions they found best for their situation. I think at worst this is a case of miscommunication. There's nothing to be disappointed about, your travel experience will still be the same. Unless you're now going to shade it, and in which case, change your plans and decline the invite, that would be best for everyone involved if you aren't going to enjoy yourself.
Says the wife who is making her guests fly to Mexico to witness a fake re-do wedding. OP has every reason to be upset with the couple who asked her to witness their wedding in another country, only to realize that they are already married.
Something just doesn't add up about this post. It makes no sense to try to keep something discreet then announce it in one's local newspaper. OP, perhaps they never intended the civil ceremony to be on the DL in the first place and always intended for it to be a public fact? You and the couple may have differing opinions on the subject, but that doesn't mean they didn't have some legit reason to make decisions they found best for their situation. I think at worst this is a case of miscommunication. There's nothing to be disappointed about, your travel experience will still be the same. Unless you're now going to shade it, and in which case, change your plans and decline the invite, that would be best for everyone involved if you aren't going to enjoy yourself.
I have no idea what their intentions were. That's why I posted to ask if what they did is customary.
This is one of my best friends, I am a bridesmaid, I got an invitation to her "wedding" in another country, and I found out via the newspaper that she and her husband were actually married last weekend.
Yes, obviously there is a miscommunication somewhere because I thought I was attending her wedding, but apparently her wedding already happened without me.
I am very disappointed. I was looking forward to their wedding. If the bride had said to me, "Hey, we're having a private ceremony in the states and then you're invited to a great party in South America," I would have had no problem with that. But I don't know if I would have booked a $2,000 trip that required FI and I each to take 3 days off work. A wedding is special.
I am still going to go, and I don't think I will say anything to her. I am hurt though, and I would be lying if I said this didn't put a damper on our friendship.
Something just doesn't add up about this post. It makes no sense to try to keep something discreet then announce it in one's local newspaper. OP, perhaps they never intended the civil ceremony to be on the DL in the first place and always intended for it to be a public fact? You and the couple may have differing opinions on the subject, but that doesn't mean they didn't have some legit reason to make decisions they found best for their situation. I think at worst this is a case of miscommunication. There's nothing to be disappointed about, your travel experience will still be the same. Unless you're now going to shade it, and in which case, change your plans and decline the invite, that would be best for everyone involved if you aren't going to enjoy yourself.
I have no idea what their intentions were. That's why I posted to ask if what they did is customary.
This is one of my best friends, I am a bridesmaid, I got an invitation to her "wedding" in another country, and I found out via the newspaper that she and her husband were actually married last weekend.
Yes, obviously there is a miscommunication somewhere because I thought I was attending her wedding, but apparently her wedding already happened without me.
I am very disappointed. I was looking forward to their wedding. If the bride had said to me, "Hey, we're having a private ceremony in the states and then you're invited to a great party in South America," I would have had no problem with that. But I don't know if I would have booked a $2,000 trip that required FI and I each to take 3 days off work. A wedding is special.
I am still going to go, and I don't think I will say anything to her. I am hurt though, and I would be lying if I said this didn't put a damper on our friendship.
I was actually going to play devil's advocate here and say "well maybe the bride never intended to keep the legal marriage a secret - maybe OP just wasn't one of the people who was specifically in the know before hand."
But OP is in the wedding party? Seriously? This would make me mad too. If you're THAT close to the bride and she didn't bother to tell you she was getting married ahead of time in person? You just happened to come across it? That is really rude. Also, what is your function in this wedding now? Instead of a bridesmaid, are you going to be a wifesmaid, because this person is no longer actually a bride?
if it was too hard for the bride to get legally married in this other country, i would probably understand her going to the JOP a week or MAYBE two weeks before hand to deal with it (though, again, it would be MUCH better if they did this AFTER the DW, from a guest's standpoint), which it sounds like is what she did. But it's weird that they considered that legal wedding to be binding enough to submit a wedding announcement, yet they are still having this huge shindig in another country. I feel like most people in that position wouldn't submit to the paper until after the DW? And say something like "they were married on X date and celebrated with friends and family the following week in X location?"
that stinks, OP. i'm sorry your friend did this to you. that's a lot of vacation time and a lot of money that you could have used to go someplace that YOU wanted to go rather than someplace that your friend wants you to go. terrible.
I'm mostly confused as to why she had it published. Even if you are being lazy and did the paper work right before or after, wouldn't you want the out of country ceremony to be what you consider the wedding?
Great question. I have considered a couple options.
1) You do consider the courthouse ceremony to be your actual wedding. Why call the other event a "wedding" though? 2) You don't consider your courthouse ceremony to be your actual wedding, but the newspaper won't publish an announcement about your DW (for some reason).
I looked it up, and this country is like the US in that weddings can be legally performed in either a civil or religious ceremony. So it isn't as though they needed an additional civil ceremony to "make it legal."
Something just doesn't add up about this post. It makes no sense to try to keep something discreet then announce it in one's local newspaper. OP, perhaps they never intended the civil ceremony to be on the DL in the first place and always intended for it to be a public fact? You and the couple may have differing opinions on the subject, but that doesn't mean they didn't have some legit reason to make decisions they found best for their situation. I think at worst this is a case of miscommunication. There's nothing to be disappointed about, your travel experience will still be the same. Unless you're now going to shade it, and in which case, change your plans and decline the invite, that would be best for everyone involved if you aren't going to enjoy yourself.
Says the wife who is making her guests fly to Mexico to witness a fake re-do wedding. OP has every reason to be upset with the couple who asked her to witness their wedding in another country, only to realize that they are already married.
Actually, I said it as a person who would never travel anywhere to watch two people sign a marriage license, they'd have to give me a little more than that. They'd have to be offering up rings, vows, a dress, an awesome party, etc. to pique my curiosity. Otherwise, they can just change their status on Facebook once the ink dries and I'll get the memo. Additionally, if it wasn't a destination I was excited to visit for any other reason, I would consider my options carefully.
Something just doesn't add up about this post. It makes no sense to try to keep something discreet then announce it in one's local newspaper. OP, perhaps they never intended the civil ceremony to be on the DL in the first place and always intended for it to be a public fact? You and the couple may have differing opinions on the subject, but that doesn't mean they didn't have some legit reason to make decisions they found best for their situation. I think at worst this is a case of miscommunication. There's nothing to be disappointed about, your travel experience will still be the same. Unless you're now going to shade it, and in which case, change your plans and decline the invite, that would be best for everyone involved if you aren't going to enjoy yourself.
I have no idea what their intentions were. That's why I posted to ask if what they did is customary.
This is one of my best friends, I am a bridesmaid, I got an invitation to her "wedding" in another country, and I found out via the newspaper that she and her husband were actually married last weekend.
Yes, obviously there is a miscommunication somewhere because I thought I was attending her wedding, but apparently her wedding already happened without me.
I am very disappointed. I was looking forward to their wedding. If the bride had said to me, "Hey, we're having a private ceremony in the states and then you're invited to a great party in South America," I would have had no problem with that. But I don't know if I would have booked a $2,000 trip that required FI and I each to take 3 days off work. A wedding is special.
I am still going to go, and I don't think I will say anything to her. I am hurt though, and I would be lying if I said this didn't put a damper on our friendship.
So one of your "best friends" asked you to be in her wedding, then had an obviously public civil ceremony announced in a newspaper, and the two of you have never had a conversation about any of it? I think there are larger issues here than your disappointment. Because this is all sorts of squirrelly.
Re: Getting married before a DW?
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
You can apply for the license, get it, have your ceremony, sign the license and then never send it in to the local authorities. . . in which case you won't legally be married.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
My friends just got married in St. Lucia. They had to be on the island for several days before the ceremony in order to make it legal there. So, even though that meant that they had to travel to be there before the wedding and therefore didn't have enough vacation time left to stay as long after the wedding as they would have liked (so that it would be a more traditional honeymoon), they got legally married in St. Lucia and then had absolutely zero trouble with the US Government when they got home. My friend was able to change her name at teh social security office without even a question right after she got back.
To me it really depends on HOW difficult it is to just do it legally in the other country. If the reasoning is "well we want to be there for a week AFTER the ceremony, not before" that isn't cool - it's putting yourselves before your guests, and getting married at the courthouse for the sake of having a traditional honeymoon (though i'd overlook this if the courthouse wedding happened AFTER the DW, so that at least the guests were seeing your FIRST ceremony rather than your second one).
However, if the other country is someplace like Italy, where you have to be in residence there for three weeks before the ceremony, and there is a very good reason that you want to get married there, I'd understand not going through the trouble to get it legalized in Italy - most people don't have 3-4 weeks of vacation they can take all at once to get that done. But again, i'd much prefer that the courthouse wedding happen after the DW if i'm a guest.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
And I brought it up because too often people poo poo the seriousness of having a legally valid marriage and use the claim, "Oh well the religious/spiritual/sentimental ceremony where we says our vows is all that matters." And they use that as a rationale to have a PPD.
Sorry, but no. Both legal validity and religious/spiritual sentimentality are important.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
STICKY!!!!!
You're splitting hairs here. The officiant needs to submit the signed paperwork, and once he does that the marriage is legal and valid. Yes things can happen that interrupt the process but it doesn't change your wedding date. It's the officiant declaring you married AND signing/submitting the license that makes your wedding valid. If the paperwork says you were married on 8/13/13 but the clerk doesn't input the info until 8/20 it doesn't change a thing. You'll just have to wait a bit longer to receive your certificate and to possibly get benefits. That simple piece of paper means everything (except maybe to your church) Eta: just re read....I guess I'm agreeing with you. @prettygirllost I get what you're saying but as long as that paperwork is sent in after the wedding was performed the couple is considered married in our society. But yes you need the actual certificate to file for benefits, though I don't think that means the couple isn't married until they receive it. If that we're the case shouldn't the ceremony be held the day the certificate is received? I mean they'd have to do things backwards for that to be the case....couple files, officiant signs, then once certificate is received a ceremony is held. But it doesn't work like that. That paper does mean everything, as long as it's filed. The few days in between shouldn't make a difference as long as everything was done properly.
After 6 years and 2 boys, finally tying the knot on October 27th, 2013!
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
This is one of my best friends, I am a bridesmaid, I got an invitation to her "wedding" in another country, and I found out via the newspaper that she and her husband were actually married last weekend.
Yes, obviously there is a miscommunication somewhere because I thought I was attending her wedding, but apparently her wedding already happened without me.
I am very disappointed. I was looking forward to their wedding. If the bride had said to me, "Hey, we're having a private ceremony in the states and then you're invited to a great party in South America," I would have had no problem with that. But I don't know if I would have booked a $2,000 trip that required FI and I each to take 3 days off work. A wedding is special.
I am still going to go, and I don't think I will say anything to her. I am hurt though, and I would be lying if I said this didn't put a damper on our friendship.
I was actually going to play devil's advocate here and say "well maybe the bride never intended to keep the legal marriage a secret - maybe OP just wasn't one of the people who was specifically in the know before hand."
But OP is in the wedding party? Seriously? This would make me mad too. If you're THAT close to the bride and she didn't bother to tell you she was getting married ahead of time in person? You just happened to come across it? That is really rude. Also, what is your function in this wedding now? Instead of a bridesmaid, are you going to be a wifesmaid, because this person is no longer actually a bride?
if it was too hard for the bride to get legally married in this other country, i would probably understand her going to the JOP a week or MAYBE two weeks before hand to deal with it (though, again, it would be MUCH better if they did this AFTER the DW, from a guest's standpoint), which it sounds like is what she did. But it's weird that they considered that legal wedding to be binding enough to submit a wedding announcement, yet they are still having this huge shindig in another country. I feel like most people in that position wouldn't submit to the paper until after the DW? And say something like "they were married on X date and celebrated with friends and family the following week in X location?"
that stinks, OP. i'm sorry your friend did this to you. that's a lot of vacation time and a lot of money that you could have used to go someplace that YOU wanted to go rather than someplace that your friend wants you to go. terrible.
1) You do consider the courthouse ceremony to be your actual wedding. Why call the other event a "wedding" though?
2) You don't consider your courthouse ceremony to be your actual wedding, but the newspaper won't publish an announcement about your DW (for some reason).
I looked it up, and this country is like the US in that weddings can be legally performed in either a civil or religious ceremony. So it isn't as though they needed an additional civil ceremony to "make it legal."
I agree with the PP that it "doesn't add up."