As SBmini points out, it is a little difficult to make a marriage legally binding in Mexico. So, if that is the case, why in the heck to people choose to get married there?!? I can understand if his family is in Mexico, or if you were originally from there, but if it's chosen just because it seems like a pretty place for a wedding, that is crap. Just don't have a ceremony there!!! It's simple. Find another country in the general area that meets your criteria. Or cut back on your plans and pay for the family visas!!! It's all about choices and I do NOT feel badly for people who willingly choose Mexico and then complain about the requirements.
edit- spelling
She actually has a good reason. His family is Brazilian and the visa requirements are less for Mexico than the US, making it possible for his family to travel to the wedding. It's sort of like everyone meeting half way. I get it. I do, and I don't judge her for picking Mexico and counting that as her real wedding even if she gets a marriage license right before she goes because it is easier in the US. I really think that is the gray area of the PPD that people need to acknowledge exists and accept that sometimes, it isn't possible to get married and sign the license on the same day.
That said, what is not acceptable is her attitude in this thread.
---------
Her reason might be understandable, but she has other options. I had friends in similar circumstances (Venezuela instead of Brazil) and they got married in Costa Rica. No Visa issues, less expensive to get to than the mainland US, and the legal requirements are very easy. OP could have done her research and found an option where she could avoid a PPD. She chose not to.
This is why many people chose to get married legally in the states and symbolically in Mexico.
As SBmini points out, it is a little difficult to make a marriage legally binding in Mexico. So, if that is the case, why in the heck to people choose to get married there?!? I can understand if his family is in Mexico, or if you were originally from there, but if it's chosen just because it seems like a pretty place for a wedding, that is crap. Just don't have a ceremony there!!! It's simple. Find another country in the general area that meets your criteria. Or cut back on your plans and pay for the family visas!!! It's all about choices and I do NOT feel badly for people who willingly choose Mexico and then complain about the requirements.
edit- spelling
She actually has a good reason. His family is Brazilian and the visa requirements are less for Mexico than the US, making it possible for his family to travel to the wedding. It's sort of like everyone meeting half way. I get it. I do, and I don't judge her for picking Mexico and counting that as her real wedding even if she gets a marriage license right before she goes because it is easier in the US. I really think that is the gray area of the PPD that people need to acknowledge exists and accept that sometimes, it isn't possible to get married and sign the license on the same day.
That said, what is not acceptable is her attitude in this thread.
To the bolded: UMMM WHAT?! The minute when you sign the license= you're married. That ALWAYS happens in the same day.
You know what, screw it. I was looking for help with an issue we were having. I guess that people don't know how to be supportive and helpful to a fellow bride, though. How about if you disagree, don't comment? That's not going to happen though, so I guess I know where not to come for help/ideas in the future.
You won't be a bride sweet cheeks. You'll be a wife. A privilege denied to many people. You got lots of helpful ideas. The first and most important one being, don't do what you have planned.
Websites/blogs where our wedding has been featured:
sometimes, it isn't possible to get married and sign the license on the same day.
That said, what is not acceptable is her attitude in this thread.
To the bolded: UMMM WHAT?! The minute when you sign the license= you're married. That ALWAYS happens in the same day.
I think that she means have the day you say your vows somewhere on Earth (or in space, who knows what the future holds!) be the day your marriage is made legal in the US (as in the vows said and THEN the license signed and submitted - the TRADITIONAL way to get married).
I'm super confused on how the traditional bride thing is being drug into this...
Maybe I'm so confused because not only do I have women in my wedding party...I have a woman who's wearing pants in my wedding party. And most likely no ushers because...well...my friends and family know how to sit down I think...
s-aries8990 said:
mbross3 said:
SBmini said:
sometimes, it isn't possible to get married and sign the license on the same day. That said, what is not acceptable is her attitude in this thread.
To the bolded: UMMM WHAT?! The minute when you sign the license= you're married. That ALWAYS happens in the same day.
I think that she means have the day you say your vows somewhere on Earth (or in space, who knows what the future holds!) be the day your marriage is made legal in the US (as in the vows said and THEN the license signed and submitted - the TRADITIONAL way to get married).
Depending on where you live, you have to get the license and have it signed (not always by the couple) and submitted, etc. The general idea is that you need to have a marriage license picked up, signed by the appropriate people, and submitted after the wedding and if all that is done, you become married when you are pronounced married by the officiant.
Basically, depending on where you're getting married, the moment where you transition from single to married varies. Which is why the vows/being pronounced is an easy "moment" to focus on, even though, without all the legal stuff, you're not actually getting married in that moment.
Anyway. I don't have much, if any, patience for, "It's too haaaard/expensive to get married where we have decided to get married, so we're going to get married elsewhere first/later." I get that maybe you picked that location for a lot of good, important reasons. I get that yes, it might be a huge burden to go through the hoops necessary to get legally married there. But I don't put up with any, "But the legal part isn't the REAL wedding." Yes, it IS the real wedding. Because you can exchange vows and have an officiant say stuff, and party all you want, but that will not make you married.
I'm super confused on how the traditional bride thing is being drug into this...
Maybe I'm so confused because not only do I have women in my wedding party...I have a woman who's wearing pants in my wedding party. And most likely no ushers because...well...my friends and family know how to sit down I think...
I'm with you! We didn't have ushers and I had a bridesman AND two eight year old bridesmaids. And the ringbearer had a mohawk. OP must be dying inside!
So before the days of marriage licenses marriages weren't traditional?
The days before the marriage licenses involved bloody sheets, dowrys, and virgin brides. Also, women couldn't inherit land. Marriage licenses have been issued as far back as the middle ages.
Women were chattel. PROPERTY for their fathers to marry off to whomever they wanted to marry them off to. Bargaining chips and all that super awesome stuff. And, oh yeah, not always the only wife (you know, that old Biblical thing).
Hey, if you want THAT as your "traditional" wedding, then feel free.
History buff weighing in!! If you lived in Catholic Europe at the time, and were not nobility/royal, banns (aka, an annoucement) had to be posted prior to the marriage. Basically a document saying "these two want to get married, is there any reason they can't (ie, one's already hitched, one's a witch, the other a murderer, etc). If noble/royal, in addition to the marriage contracts which spelled out the terms of the dowry and the like (had to be signed by parties/bride's guardian, church witnessed, etc), you often needed a papal dispensation, due to the high degree of blood relations between the royal families (marrying off for political reasons led to a lot of cousinship, and it was considered demeaning to not wed someone of similar political/financial/social status as you), basically saying "yes, these two are 3rd cousins twice removed, but we will ok this marriage"
OP- when you sign that license at the courthouse, even before your DW, you must say I Dos in front of the officiant. Even if it's a clerk/notary. They must witness your exchange of vows/promise of marriage, ask you if you are doing this of your own free will, etc., before they can stamp and notarize the license. It does count, even if you don't want to believe it.
So when do you normally sign the Marriage License? Just after your vows? Before the cake cutting? Mostly I've seen it before the cake cutting, but if i'm being nitpicky, when the officiant pronounces the B&G husband and wife, they actually aren't, right?
I believe once the ceremony is over with the bride and groom head to a room and have the officiant sign the license (in my state only the officiant needs to sign it, no one else). In all honesty, the couple is not officially married until the license is sent in and processed, but the need of an officiant presiding over the ceremony and signing the license makes the couple about 99.9% married. So I would say that when the officiant pronounces them man and wife the couple is basically married because you need the officiant to do the ceremony for them to even to consider signing the license.
Did any of that make sense? Early and long day = tired brain.
So when do you normally sign the Marriage License? Just after your vows? Before the cake cutting? Mostly I've seen it before the cake cutting, but if i'm being nitpicky, when the officiant pronounces the B&G husband and wife, they actually aren't, right?
I believe once the ceremony is over with the bride and groom head to a room and have the officiant sign the license (in my state only the officiant needs to sign it, no one else). In all honesty, the couple is not officially married until the license is sent in and processed, but the need of an officiant presiding over the ceremony and signing the license makes the couple about 99.9% married. So I would say that when the officiant pronounces them man and wife the couple is basically married because you need the officiant to do the ceremony for them to even to consider signing the license.
Did any of that make sense? Early and long day = tired brain.
This isn't true in all states, there's some really bizarre case law surrounding this topic (which can come up if the couple married but one of them died before the license was filed). I'm not 100% sure on this, but I'm fairly certain the answer is you're technically married as soon as you satisfy whatever the legal requirements of your state are (i.e. exchanging somber vows in front of an officiant), subject to the license being actually filed.
Don't worry guys, I have the Wedding Police AND the Whambulance on speed dial!
And some states don't require that the bride/groom sign the actual license. DH and I had to go to the courthouse together to file and sign for the license, but only the officiant had to sign and submit the license itself once the ceremony was performed.
So when do you normally sign the Marriage License? Just after your vows? Before the cake cutting? Mostly I've seen it before the cake cutting, but if i'm being nitpicky, when the officiant pronounces the B&G husband and wife, they actually aren't, right?
I believe once the ceremony is over with the bride and groom head to a room and have the officiant sign the license (in my state only the officiant needs to sign it, no one else). In all honesty, the couple is not officially married until the license is sent in and processed, but the need of an officiant presiding over the ceremony and signing the license makes the couple about 99.9% married. So I would say that when the officiant pronounces them man and wife the couple is basically married because you need the officiant to do the ceremony for them to even to consider signing the license.
Did any of that make sense? Early and long day = tired brain.
You know, @shrekspeare's question got me to thinking about our license.
DH and I both signed the license at the District Clerk's office. No vows, nothing else, we just had to sign it in front of the official (I presume since we'd already proven we were the people who's names were listed on the license?). There was, of course, a HUGE empty signature line that needed to be filled out; the officiant's space. He, of course, was responsible for signing THAT line once he'd performed the ceremony AND he was the one responsible for sending it in (with the nice little envelope the Clerk's office provided).
But then, thinking back to my bestie's wedding; she and her husband didn't sign their license (or some official looking paperwork) until the day of their wedding with their clergyman (I signed as a witness as did the BM). Different counties, different rules? Or, perhaps what I signed was something that she'd paid extra for to keep and frame at their home (it seems like I remember that being an option when we got our license as well).
Soooo...I guess the parties involved can SIGN the sucker, but it's not "legit" until the person performing the ceremony signs it? Or is this yet ANOTHER instance where Texas is just all sorts of weirdness?
@shrekspeare; thank you. Believe me, we NEED the condolences. It's either going to get MUCH worse (fuckyouverymuch Greg Abbot), or better (#TeamWendyDavis!).
This led to me to actually check my state's marriage license stuff (we're so far out that we hadn't bothered checking yet). It takes 3 days to get a license after applying for one, you must both apply in person (although you can have someone else pick up the license for your), and the license is good for 60 days (after applying, not after it's issued). The couple doesn't sign the license; the officiant does. The officiant fills out all the relevant info, and must bring the license BACK to the city/town hall that issued the license. You can get married in any town or city in the state.
Super cool. So basically, in my state, I'm not signing my marriage license.
I'm libertarian. Rights are not given by the government, they are intrinsic to our humanity.
But…you're wrong. They ARE given by the government.
Whether you think they should or should not is totally beside the point.
So your right to life is something given to you by the government? As in, it's perfectly ok if they just take it away from you. Same with your marriage? If they decide to no longer legally recognize marriages are you just going to stop considering that you're married?
You know...there are some brides on this forum who DESPERATELY wish they could be married, but cannot because of the government....just...no words...
Yeah different states and counties have different rules regarding marriage licenses. In my county we didn't have to sign the license, there wasn't even a place for our signature, just for our officiant. But in other states the couple needs to sign it along with witnesses and the officiant. But the license isn't official until the officiant signs it because only the officiant can deem you 'man and wife." Some sort of ceremony needs to take place in front of an officiant (judge, priest, whatever) whether that be a huge one hour church ceremony or a simple 5 second "are you both doing this of your own free will" type thing and that officiant needs to sign the license.
In most states, both parties (bride/groom/partner/etc.) both have to sign the license APPLICATION. Then, the license is issued, and the officiant performing the ceremony signs the LICENSE. Once the officiant signs the license, the marriage is considered valid and legally binding. It becomes legally recognized once the officiant files the executed license with the county clerk's office.
If someone gets their license and has a JOP ceremony, the JOP files it immediately with the clerk and it's legally valid, and recognized immediately, because the JOP is the officiant.
Websites/blogs where our wedding has been featured:
Here is how I see it (and for the record, no PPD for me, picked up an UNSIGNED license that will be signed after the ceremony)
There are two ways in which you are married.
There is the symbolic way, as you stand there at the alter and your officiant declares you man and wife. And you are viewed as married in front of your friends, family and creator.
And there's the legal way, when you sign the certificate, send it in, it is processed and you get your marriage license in the mail, legally recognized as married by the state.
Now none of us have dreams about the day we get our marriage license in the mail. What we dream about is the symbolic marriage, not the legal one- regardless of which one is more real. We've already recognized that there is a time delay from when you sign the certificate to when the state registers you as married. And we all realize that this time delay does not change the day in which you are married on.
Now, for some people getting married internationally for what ever reason, they cannot have the symbolic and legal ceremony on the same day. That doesn't mean that the symbolic wedding carries no significance. That is what the couple will remember, that is where the photos will be taken of, and where friends and family will gather to celebrate. That is the wedding, not when they signed the certificate to be legally married before the symbolic ceremony.
This is why I argue for a PPD grace period. If you get married in November for tax reasons, or insurance, or because one of you is in the military, or for a loan loop hole, or because you want to move in together, etc. And then you have a big "wedding" next June, that is a PPD. But, if you go to the court house and sign your marriage certificate on Monday, then get on a plane on Wednesday and say your vows on Saturday- that is a legal technicality. And brides in the second case don't deserve the score that brides in the first case deserve. It's a completely different situation.
This is just my opinion on the matter. I'll step off my soap box now.
This thread is making me angrier than I could have expected.
I'm planning my wedding while my uncles are planning theirs. The only difference is that they became a couple ~35 years ago. They waited until our state made it legal and our federal government treated them with respect. They're getting married a few months before I will.
All of these PPDs and the talk about "real" vs. JOP weddings bothers me so much because of this. The idea that my uncles- a couple who has been together longer than most couples - had to wait so long to get married reminds me of exactly how important the legal aspect of marriage is. To treat the legal contract of marriage so cheaply seems incredibly disrespectful of their fight.
50+ years ago, FI and I wouldn't be allowed to get married in some states. Today, my uncles still can't in our home state for a few more months.
They are incredibly fortunate that they had the resources to take care of the legal paperwork that would protect them both from various issues and one worked for an organization that respects same-sex partners, giving them both health insurance. They could have gotten married in other countries or other states but they waited- for them, it wasn't "real" unless they could get married surrounded by family and friends in an area that was their home.
To treat something so important so cheaply is an insult to everyone has fought for this right.
Here is how I see it (and for the record, no PPD for me, picked up an UNSIGNED license that will be signed after the ceremony)
There are two ways in which you are married.
There is the symbolic way, as you stand there at the alter and your officiant declares you man and wife. And you are viewed as married in front of your friends, family and creator.
And there's the legal way, when you sign the certificate, send it in, it is processed and you get your marriage license in the mail, legally recognized as married by the state.
Now none of us have dreams about the day we get our marriage license in the mail. What we dream about is the symbolic marriage, not the legal one- regardless of which one is more real. We've already recognized that there is a time delay from when you sign the certificate to when the state registers you as married. And we all realize that this time delay does not change the day in which you are married on.
Now, for some people getting married internationally for what ever reason, they cannot have the symbolic and legal ceremony on the same day. That doesn't mean that the symbolic wedding carries no significance. That is what the couple will remember, that is where the photos will be taken of, and where friends and family will gather to celebrate. That is the wedding, not when they signed the certificate to be legally married before the symbolic ceremony.
This is why I argue for a PPD grace period. If you get married in November for tax reasons, or insurance, or because one of you is in the military, or for a loan loop hole, or because you want to move in together, etc. And then you have a big "wedding" next June, that is a PPD. But, if you go to the court house and sign your marriage certificate on Monday, then get on a plane on Wednesday and say your vows on Saturday- that is a legal technicality. And brides in the second case don't deserve the score that brides in the first case deserve. It's a completely different situation.
This is just my opinion on the matter. I'll step off my soap box now.
I can agree that there may be different levels of PPDs. However, most of those that sign the papers prior just for "ease of paperwork" do not tell any of this to their guests. I can see where someone would think that it's a silly thing to mention to a guest, but for DWs, the guests are most likely spending over a thousand dollars to travel and taking time off of work, which is very hard to come by for some. I think just having the courtesy of telling people the truth, or waiting until returning home to sign the papers, makes this type of PPD MUCH more acceptable. There are a lot of brides on here who are signing the papers first for ease of paperwork, but purposely NOT telling the guests that they did that, even if they are asked. They are letting everyone believe they are truly getting married at the ceremony. At the end of the day, it's the lying that gets everyone worked up around here.
You are not traditional nor a libertarian. You're acting like you're some sort of rebel on par with MLK or something (while still traditional!) and it's a joke and a slap to the face.
Curious to your thoughts on feminism as well.
Oh I'm on a budget too and rather than cutting out bridal party I'm putting in some damn effort and making my own flowers.
I do understanding getting the license ahead of time- it's not ideal, but I get it. We have friends that got married in Mexico yesterday and they did that and I can't say I'm getting my undies in a twist over it. I'd do the same- but then again, the hassle involved is why we aren't having a DW. If you can go through the hassle of a DW, you can go through the hassle of getting your license done on the day you get married.
You said yourself though you're doing it for tax reasons, which is a whole different story. It's immature, rude, and a sham.
And like others said, why do the legal part if you don't believe in government? Oh wait, you do, when it's convenient for you.
FWIW, both H and I had to sign our marriage license with our names "as they would be known." the officiant also had to sign it and write in all her stuff basically saying she was allowed by the state to marry us. We did all of this directly after the ceremony. We also took our license to the clerk the next day; our officiant didn't send it in (though they typically do). And we lost the marriage license the night of our wedding, do we almost had a reverse PPD. Whoops.
If OP was really that "traditional", I hope she isn't living with or having sex with her FI. And, they should be having the wedding in the bride's home town. And her parents should be paying for the wedding, and should be giving her FI's family a goat or something.
Websites/blogs where our wedding has been featured:
@SBmini, as has been hashed and rehashed on the thread over on Etiquette, there is no reason that a couple (at least in the U.S.) "cannot" have both the legal and the 'symbolic' marriage take place simultaneously. And really, there's no reason OP or anyone else "cannot" have a legally binding wedding in Mexico or any destination. There is more work to be done, true, but just skipping that and lying to one's friends and family (and making them pay lots of money to attend what is essentially a piece of theatre and not terribly entertaining theatre at that) is inappropriate and insulting to many people.
Yes, when I dreamt of my wedding I dreamt of saying my vows in front of my family and friends, not getting the licensed signed. BUT, I also never once thought it appropriate to get that piece of paper signed months before or heck, even the day before our wedding date, because then we would already be married and us saying our vows in front of our friends and family would be an act. For me, my wedding day was the day I not only symbolically married my H but also the day that we legally became a unit. To split those two things up and to not think of the legal aspect as just as important if not more important then the symbolic portion is completely crazy to me.
Here is how I see it (and for the record, no PPD for me, picked up an UNSIGNED license that will be signed after the ceremony)
There are two ways in which you are married.
There is the symbolic way, as you stand there at the alter and your officiant declares you man and wife. And you are viewed as married in front of your friends, family and creator.
And there's the legal way, when you sign the certificate, send it in, it is processed and you get your marriage license in the mail, legally recognized as married by the state.
Now none of us have dreams about the day we get our marriage license in the mail. What we dream about is the symbolic marriage, not the legal one- regardless of which one is more real. We've already recognized that there is a time delay from when you sign the certificate to when the state registers you as married. And we all realize that this time delay does not change the day in which you are married on.
Now, for some people getting married internationally for what ever reason, they cannot have the symbolic and legal ceremony on the same day. That doesn't mean that the symbolic wedding carries no significance. That is what the couple will remember, that is where the photos will be taken of, and where friends and family will gather to celebrate. That is the wedding, not when they signed the certificate to be legally married before the symbolic ceremony.
This is why I argue for a PPD grace period. If you get married in November for tax reasons, or insurance, or because one of you is in the military, or for a loan loop hole, or because you want to move in together, etc. And then you have a big "wedding" next June, that is a PPD. But, if you go to the court house and sign your marriage certificate on Monday, then get on a plane on Wednesday and say your vows on Saturday- that is a legal technicality. And brides in the second case don't deserve the score that brides in the first case deserve. It's a completely different situation.
This is just my opinion on the matter. I'll step off my soap box now.
So first of all, not "man and wife." I know it was likely a completely innocent mistake, but with same-sex marriage becoming legal in more states and countries, we've got to start watching heteronormative language.
@SBmini, as has been hashed and rehashed on the thread over on Etiquette, there is no reason that a couple (at least in the U.S.) "cannot" have both the legal and the 'symbolic' marriage take place simultaneously. And really, there's no reason OP or anyone else "cannot" have a legally binding wedding in Mexico or any destination. There is more work to be done, true, but just skipping that and lying to one's friends and family (and making them pay lots of money to attend what is essentially a piece of theatre and not terribly entertaining theatre at that) is inappropriate and insulting to many people.
That's my take on it, too. If it's so important to have the ceremony/party in one location, then it's important enough to do the legal paperwork there. No one is entitled to a wedding in a particular location. While I agree that there are some PPDs that are more infuriating than others, I'd like to see a shift away from the entitlement that the wedding industrial complex tells brides and grooms is totes okay.
Re: Traditional Brides?
You won't be a bride sweet cheeks. You'll be a wife. A privilege denied to many people. You got lots of helpful ideas. The first and most important one being, don't do what you have planned.
Websites/blogs where our wedding has been featured:
http://www.dapperq.com/2013/11/a-very-dapper-wedding/
http://www.onabicyclebuiltfortwo.com/2013/10/wedding-christina-g.html
http://4realequalityweddings.com/2014/05/16/g-christina/
That said, what is not acceptable is her attitude in this thread. To the bolded: UMMM WHAT?! The minute when you sign the license= you're married. That ALWAYS happens in the same day. I think that she means have the day you say your vows somewhere on Earth (or in space, who knows what the future holds!) be the day your marriage is made legal in the US (as in the vows said and THEN the license signed and submitted - the TRADITIONAL way to get married).
Depending on where you live, you have to get the license and have it signed (not always by the couple) and submitted, etc. The general idea is that you need to have a marriage license picked up, signed by the appropriate people, and submitted after the wedding and if all that is done, you become married when you are pronounced married by the officiant.
Basically, depending on where you're getting married, the moment where you transition from single to married varies. Which is why the vows/being pronounced is an easy "moment" to focus on, even though, without all the legal stuff, you're not actually getting married in that moment.
This
History buff weighing in!! If you lived in Catholic Europe at the time, and were not nobility/royal, banns (aka, an annoucement) had to be posted prior to the marriage. Basically a document saying "these two want to get married, is there any reason they can't (ie, one's already hitched, one's a witch, the other a murderer, etc). If noble/royal, in addition to the marriage contracts which spelled out the terms of the dowry and the like (had to be signed by parties/bride's guardian, church witnessed, etc), you often needed a papal dispensation, due to the high degree of blood relations between the royal families (marrying off for political reasons led to a lot of cousinship, and it was considered demeaning to not wed someone of similar political/financial/social status as you), basically saying "yes, these two are 3rd cousins twice removed, but we will ok this marriage"
OP- when you sign that license at the courthouse, even before your DW, you must say I Dos in front of the officiant. Even if it's a clerk/notary. They must witness your exchange of vows/promise of marriage, ask you if you are doing this of your own free will, etc., before they can stamp and notarize the license. It does count, even if you don't want to believe it.
You know, @shrekspeare's question got me to thinking about our license.
DH and I both signed the license at the District Clerk's office. No vows, nothing else, we just had to sign it in front of the official (I presume since we'd already proven we were the people who's names were listed on the license?). There was, of course, a HUGE empty signature line that needed to be filled out; the officiant's space. He, of course, was responsible for signing THAT line once he'd performed the ceremony AND he was the one responsible for sending it in (with the nice little envelope the Clerk's office provided).
But then, thinking back to my bestie's wedding; she and her husband didn't sign their license (or some official looking paperwork) until the day of their wedding with their clergyman (I signed as a witness as did the BM). Different counties, different rules? Or, perhaps what I signed was something that she'd paid extra for to keep and frame at their home (it seems like I remember that being an option when we got our license as well).
Soooo...I guess the parties involved can SIGN the sucker, but it's not "legit" until the person performing the ceremony signs it? Or is this yet ANOTHER instance where Texas is just all sorts of weirdness?
I'm scared it's going to get worse.
In most states, both parties (bride/groom/partner/etc.) both have to sign the license APPLICATION. Then, the license is issued, and the officiant performing the ceremony signs the LICENSE. Once the officiant signs the license, the marriage is considered valid and legally binding. It becomes legally recognized once the officiant files the executed license with the county clerk's office.
If someone gets their license and has a JOP ceremony, the JOP files it immediately with the clerk and it's legally valid, and recognized immediately, because the JOP is the officiant.
Websites/blogs where our wedding has been featured:
http://www.dapperq.com/2013/11/a-very-dapper-wedding/
http://www.onabicyclebuiltfortwo.com/2013/10/wedding-christina-g.html
http://4realequalityweddings.com/2014/05/16/g-christina/
I'm planning my wedding while my uncles are planning theirs. The only difference is that they became a couple ~35 years ago. They waited until our state made it legal and our federal government treated them with respect. They're getting married a few months before I will.
All of these PPDs and the talk about "real" vs. JOP weddings bothers me so much because of this. The idea that my uncles- a couple who has been together longer than most couples - had to wait so long to get married reminds me of exactly how important the legal aspect of marriage is. To treat the legal contract of marriage so cheaply seems incredibly disrespectful of their fight.
50+ years ago, FI and I wouldn't be allowed to get married in some states. Today, my uncles still can't in our home state for a few more months.
They are incredibly fortunate that they had the resources to take care of the legal paperwork that would protect them both from various issues and one worked for an organization that respects same-sex partners, giving them both health insurance. They could have gotten married in other countries or other states but they waited- for them, it wasn't "real" unless they could get married surrounded by family and friends in an area that was their home.
To treat something so important so cheaply is an insult to everyone has fought for this right.
If OP was really that "traditional", I hope she isn't living with or having sex with her FI. And, they should be having the wedding in the bride's home town. And her parents should be paying for the wedding, and should be giving her FI's family a goat or something.
Websites/blogs where our wedding has been featured:
http://www.dapperq.com/2013/11/a-very-dapper-wedding/
http://www.onabicyclebuiltfortwo.com/2013/10/wedding-christina-g.html
http://4realequalityweddings.com/2014/05/16/g-christina/
Second of all: