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.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS !!!!!!
I rarely call people out on this here, because this is a predominatly heterosexually used site. But for crying out loud, people. Expand your mind a little bit.
I get SOOOOO sick of answering the "so, what does your husband do?" question after people see my wedding ring. Or, when I was younger "Do you have a boyfriend?"
It's really easy to use non gender specific language, and not only in reference to marriage, but, in your whole LIFE. I shouldn't have to come out over and over again. Everyone should assume that they don't know someone's sexuality until they actually know it. I don't assume that anyone is straight until they tell me that they are. It would be nice if straight people did the same thing.
Websites/blogs where our wedding has been featured:
I appreciate your post, Queer Femme. I have a question. Is the phrase "bride and groom" offensive? I often post about what iis necessary to have a wedding, (I should make it into a sticky!) and I do want to be correct. Thank you.
I appreciate your post, Queer Femme. I have a question. Is the phrase "bride and groom" offensive? I often post about what iis necessary to have a wedding, (I should make it into a sticky!) and I do want to be correct. Thank you.
Yes, I agree we too often fall back on heteronormative language and assumptions. I try although I do fall back on it sometimes.
Interesting question, @CMGragain. I have seen your standard post about what's necessary for a "traditional" wedding and it's a great response to have for lovely snowflakes like our "traditional" bride today. Maybe instead of saying "bride and groom" we can say "the couple?"
I'm also sad my computer thinks heteronormative isn't a word.
"I'm not a rude bitch. I'm ten rude bitches in a large coat."
I appreciate your post, Queer Femme. I have a question. Is the phrase "bride and groom" offensive? I often post about what iis necessary to have a wedding, (I should make it into a sticky!) and I do want to be correct. Thank you.
I try to say "the couple." When I'm talking about collective people who are getting married, I say "brides and grooms," referring to ALL the brides and grooms (which includes brides marrying brides, and grooms marrying grooms).
I think we should start saying, 'Two consenting adults free of any legal encumbrances and an officiant capable of uniting them in legally binding matrimony. '
Because that covers all heteronormative and legal bases.
I'm gonna go with 'not my circus, not my monkeys.'
There is nothing traditional about having a destination wedding, or about making up jobs to "honor" people at that wedding. Absolutely zero traditional weddings involved flying with all your guests to Mexico. If you actually care what a traditional wedding looks like, read @CMGragain has to say on the subject.
And if you don't want the government involved in your marriage, don't get legally married at all. You're not going to be prosecuted for fornication if you just start shacking up.
This is why many people chose to get married legally in the states and symbolically in Mexico.
No, they choose to get symbolically married in Mexico because they want a DW but don't want to put forth the expense and effort to do it so that they are legally married and symbolically married all at the same time, on the same day.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
If we could have the wedding at home, we would. Unfortunately, that would mean his entire family, including his parents and brother, not being able to attend because of visa costs to travel from Brazil. The traditions are: ushers have to be male, and the wedding is when you are married NOT when you sign a piece of paper.
And 'traditional brides' sign the fucking marriage license AT THE TIME THEY HAVE THEIR TRADITIONAL CEREMONY. It doesn't matter when you think you're married or what you think of the government, the government is what legally matters. So your spousal benefits begin at the moment you sign the license. So what you're saying is that you aren't going to accept the tax benefits, insurance benefits, rights of survivorship if (God forbid) something happens to one of you on the way to the wedding, etc? Really? Bull.
I purposely used 'man and wife' for its symbolism. I strongly support same sex union everywhere- but I loath over the top political correctness. I was no way trying to be offensive or exclusionary.
Shit, I didn't have an usher. Do I get to have a real wedding now??
OP, I had a DW. I took 3 extra days off work, costing me over $1000 in pay and coverage, so I could be there in time to sign my license. Days and money I wouldn't have had to use/spend if we had stayed home. I also had DH's family flying in from South America, though visa's weren't really an issue wherever we choose to get married. If you want to get married in Mexico, fine, but go down the 4 days before hand and get your blood tests. Suck it up and follow the requirements or find a new place to get married. Several PP's have mentioned other Caribbean area countries with no Visa issues for Brazil and no requirements for marriage, it is very possible.
I purposely used 'man and wife' for its symbolism. I strongly support same sex union everywhere- but I loath over the top political correctness. I was no way trying to be offensive or exclusionary.
This isn't about political correctness. This is about erasing same-sex couples. I assumed you'd said it by accident, but since you were deliberate about it, I'll tell you: that's frickin rude. If you support same-sex marriages, then why would you be loath to use language that's inclusive? How is it even a little bit over the top to be inclusive of ALL of the people who are using these boards? How is "man and wife" even a symbolic thing to say?
If I were nit-picking for political correctness, I would have pointed out that "man and wife" is actually pretty sexist even for hetero couples, whereas "husband and wife" is more appropriate and egalitarian.
I purposely used 'man and wife' for its symbolism. I strongly support same sex union everywhere- but I loath over the top political correctness. I was no way trying to be offensive or exclusionary.
This isn't about political correctness. This is about erasing same-sex couples. I assumed you'd said it by accident, but since you were deliberate about it, I'll tell you: that's frickin rude. If you support same-sex marriages, then why would you be loath to use language that's inclusive? How is it even a little bit over the top to be inclusive of ALL of the people who are using these boards? How is "man and wife" even a symbolic thing to say?
If I were nit-picking for political correctness, I would have pointed out that "man and wife" is actually pretty sexist even for hetero couples, whereas "husband and wife" is more appropriate and egalitarian.
This. (I like to think PC stands for "plain courtesy").
I'm a traditional bride I guess. Formal wedding, fully hosted reception.
But, I am a feminist as is DF. Under the basic idea that women and men have the exact same rights as each other. Both genders are equal, neither is more important. It's about equality. I am a WAHM, because one of us needed to be at home and DF's employment was far more stable and paid radically better. If it had been reversed, he'd be the one at home.
But - your DW is a PPD. It's not traditional. Saying a JoP marriage is not real - which makes your DW not PPD - is so insulting, made worse by your political leanings which generally are for less/no government in civil liberties. I have far too many friends who would give anything to have "just" a JoP marriage, but the government is being invasive, demanding and subjecting citizens to far from universal religious views, in direct and spiteful violations of freedom of religion (which includes FROM religion) and the separation of church and state. The US was founded on religious freedom and now we apparently hate that.
Because prohibition of homosexual marriage is nothing but the force of some religions on all citizens. To truly follow the Constitution, the state would recognize the marriage of any consenting adults and each church could do as they please.
So, if you wish to not want your JoP real marriage, please let my dear friends who have been together and faithful to each other for 23 years have the real marriage.
Also, this thread is hilarious so far. I really hope OP is a virgin and that her father is paying a nice dowry to the groom's parents. OP is, after all, her father's property considering. Especially considering she's traditional and not a feminist or anything.
Oops, guess I'm not traditional. I have premarital relations. My dad apparently rolled his eyes at DF letting my parents know he was proposing since I'm an independent adult. My dad REFUSES to walk me down the aisle as I'm not property to be given away. My maternal grandparents would return from his grave to disown my dad if he did that while his parents and step grandmother beat sense into him. We're doing first looks and I'm not wearing a blusher. Actually, our church forbids blushers.
Guess I'm having a new fangled, hippy wedding.
Does the amount my dad pays for the wedding count as my dowry?
I appreciate your post, Queer Femme. I have a question. Is the phrase "bride and groom" offensive? I often post about what iis necessary to have a wedding, (I should make it into a sticky!) and I do want to be correct. Thank you.
It's not as much "offensive" as much as exclusionary. If you want to be inclusive, just change the language to "two adults" without reference to gender.
And @sbmini , it's not about political correctness. It's about a simple shift on language so you aren't excluding 10 to 20% of the population (depending on which research numbers you are looking at). It's shitty to say that you are supportive but you can't or wont shift your language in the name of being against political correctness, especially when it costs you nothing. It takes zero or very minimal effort to get off the heterosexual high horse.
When more people actually start giving a shit about their heterosexual superiority, that's when there will be more significant change in society as a whole.
Websites/blogs where our wedding has been featured:
I appreciate your post, Queer Femme. I have a question. Is the phrase "bride and groom" offensive? I often post about what iis necessary to have a wedding, (I should make it into a sticky!) and I do want to be correct. Thank you.
It's not as much "offensive" as much as exclusionary. If you want to be inclusive, just change the language to "two adults" without reference to gender.
And @sbmini , it's not about political correctness. It's about a simple shift on language so you aren't excluding 10 to 20% of the population (depending on which research numbers you are looking at). It's shitty to say that you are supportive but you can't or wont shift your language in the name of being against political correctness, especially when it costs you nothing. It takes zero or very minimal effort to get off the heterosexual high horse.
When more people actually start giving a shit about their heterosexual superiority, that's when there will be more significant change in society as a whole.
FWIW, in my state (FL), DH and I had to go in to the Clerk's office with our filled out application. There, we had to show proof of id with the application, and sign some forms, including what would be our license. Signing did not take place until we looked it over to make sure all was correct (had to reprint, as at first she had DH's place of birth as Mew York, lol). We signed it after affirming that we weren't drunk, and paid the fee.
HOWEVER, the license was not valid until the actual ceremony (1 month later) when we said our vows before an officiant and had our witnesses (our dads) sign the license. Not until it was stamped and notarized was it official and valid.
Just pointing out that in some states, you must sign the darn thing at the clerks office, but until the officiant signs it, it is not valid, and you avoid a ppd.
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.
You are wrong. Full stop, no argument, no discussion, just: You. Are. Wrong.
Now, you're welcome to have wrong opinions, because God knows lots of other people do. But you need to acknowledge that they are wrong.
There is no such thing, whether you think there should be or not, as a 'PPD grace period.' In your OMFG head-scratchingly dumb example, the couple 'signs' the licence on Monday and gets married on Wednesday.....why? What in God's name is stopping them from just signing the damn thing on Wednesday?
Oh, that's right -- N.O.T.H.I.N.G. NOT.A.DAMN.THING.
Life is full of choices. Being an adult is being able to deal with the consequences of those choices.
OP could have done any number of things in order to have a REAL wedding and have her FI's family there. In a Venn diagram, there is an overlap of countries in which they could have gotten married for which Visas wouldn't have been an issue. They prioritised Mexico over that. That's rude.
DH and I jumped through the hoops required by the Catholic Church in order to have a full Catholic Mass. Would it have been easier to just have a non-Catholic Mass? Yes. But did we do that? NO. We took the necessary and appropriate steps to have our REAL WEDDING in our church, in our faith.
I purposely used 'man and wife' for its symbolism. I strongly support same sex union everywhere- but I loath over the top political correctness. I was no way trying to be offensive or exclusionary.
This is just such utter fucking bullshit I don't even have words for it this early in the morning.
I'm gonna go with 'not my circus, not my monkeys.'
Just realized I technically was a willing participant and bridesmaid at a PPD. I saw no issue with my sister and her wife getting legally married in one state the day before their religious ceremony and reception the next day. In the eyes of the law - they were married Friday - in the eyes of the Jewish religion they were not married until Saturday when the rabbi held the ceremony and the Ketubah was signed. I guess I wouldn't assume everyone was okay with them doing things this way - but I certainly didn't side-eye them. For them - they wished they could have been married in any state at the same time as their wedding...but the sad truth is we aren't there yet.
Oops, guess I'm not traditional. I have premarital relations. My dad apparently rolled his eyes at DF letting my parents know he was proposing since I'm an independent adult. My dad REFUSES to walk me down the aisle as I'm not property to be given away. My maternal grandparents would return from his grave to disown my dad if he did that while his parents and step grandmother beat sense into him. We're doing first looks and I'm not wearing a blusher. Actually, our church forbids blushers.
Guess I'm having a new fangled, hippy wedding.
Does the amount my dad pays for the wedding count as my dowry?
It only counts as a dowry if he throws in some goats and chickens.
@QueerFemme - I truly never thought of the gender specific language. Thanks for your post - it has made me think differently about that. I will try in the future to be more inclusive in how I refer to a couple if I don't know their genders.
Just realized I technically was a willing participant and bridesmaid at a PPD. I saw no issue with my sister and her wife getting legally married in one state the day before their religious ceremony and reception the next day. In the eyes of the law - they were married Friday - in the eyes of the Jewish religion they were not married until Saturday when the rabbi held the ceremony and the Ketubah was signed. I guess I wouldn't assume everyone was okay with them doing things this way - but I certainly didn't side-eye them. For them - they wished they could have been married in any state at the same time as their wedding...but the sad truth is we aren't there yet.
Not a PPD at all. That's the only way they could have legally done it, because their home state gov are jackasses. Gay couples get a total pass from me (and I think other Knotties would agree) in situations like this.
"I'm not a rude bitch. I'm ten rude bitches in a large coat."
Just wondering if I am the only one who caught that the OP stated in her original thread that she is bisexual? Things just don't add up. She just kept adjusting her story to fit her absurd argument. I don't know one gay or bisexual woman who would suggest women are less deserving than men to participate in a wedding, as OP has several times.
I think she is the most successful TROLL we've had in a while.
The benefits, which I don't think should exist to begin with, are the only reason we are getting a marriage license at all. Please don't pull the "you're so insensitive" card. I'm bisexual, and over half of my friends are gay. I know the struggles, and still have this opinion. Also, how do you define marriage? Because I define it as people making a commitment to each other and their families to share their lives. I don't see government anywhere in there.
@Allononeday, I'm just curious- why does your church forbid blushers?
When I think "traditional" bride, I think of my (at the time) 25 year old coworker marrying her high school sweetheart who lived at home with her parents until her wedding. Her dad called her (Catholic) church to be absolutely sure the altar attendants would be altar boys. Not altar girls. I remember when the Church started allowing girls to serve at Mass and had no idea some people actually had a problem with it! For the record, this coworker was really embarrassed about that.
Bottom line, when I think of "traditional" I think of a religious ceremony, in a house of worship, whichever it may be. That's about it.
Just realized I technically was a willing participant and bridesmaid at a PPD. I saw no issue with my sister and her wife getting legally married in one state the day before their religious ceremony and reception the next day. In the eyes of the law - they were married Friday - in the eyes of the Jewish religion they were not married until Saturday when the rabbi held the ceremony and the Ketubah was signed. I guess I wouldn't assume everyone was okay with them doing things this way - but I certainly didn't side-eye them. For them - they wished they could have been married in any state at the same time as their wedding...but the sad truth is we aren't there yet.
**Stuck in the effing box**
This is the one and only exception to a PPD. If you cannot legally get married in your home state because your state doesn't recognise your form of marriage, you get a pass.
I'm gonna go with 'not my circus, not my monkeys.'
Just realized I technically was a willing participant and bridesmaid at a PPD. I saw no issue with my sister and her wife getting legally married in one state the day before their religious ceremony and reception the next day. In the eyes of the law - they were married Friday - in the eyes of the Jewish religion they were not married until Saturday when the rabbi held the ceremony and the Ketubah was signed. I guess I wouldn't assume everyone was okay with them doing things this way - but I certainly didn't side-eye them. For them - they wished they could have been married in any state at the same time as their wedding...but the sad truth is we aren't there yet.
I agree that this is not a ppd. When states deny rights, you gotta do what you gotta do. That's not the same as it just being a hassle (ie. Getting an international marriage license).
I didn't want to have two ceremonies, but the fucking state didn't give me that option. So we had our wedding in 2012 and dud the legal part in 2013 a week after DOMA was overturned.
Websites/blogs where our wedding has been featured:
Just wondering if I am the only one who caught that the OP stated in her original thread that she is bisexual? Things just don't add up. She just kept adjusting her story to fit her absurd argument. I don't know one gay or bisexual woman who would suggest women are less deserving than men to participate in a wedding, as OP has several times.
I think she is the most successful TROLL we've had in a while.
The benefits, which I don't think should exist to begin with, are the only reason we are getting a marriage license at all. Please don't pull the "you're so insensitive" card. I'm bisexual, and over half of my friends are gay. I know the struggles, and still have this opinion. Also, how do you define marriage? Because I define it as people making a commitment to each other and their families to share their lives. I don't see government anywhere in there.
I honestly just thought she was one of those "self-loathing" types.
If one comes from a very conservative background, they can end up in this odd limbo like the OP seems to be in. Assuming she's not trolling.
Re: Traditional Brides?
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS !!!!!!
I rarely call people out on this here, because this is a predominatly heterosexually used site. But for crying out loud, people. Expand your mind a little bit.
I get SOOOOO sick of answering the "so, what does your husband do?" question after people see my wedding ring. Or, when I was younger "Do you have a boyfriend?"
It's really easy to use non gender specific language, and not only in reference to marriage, but, in your whole LIFE. I shouldn't have to come out over and over again. Everyone should assume that they don't know someone's sexuality until they actually know it. I don't assume that anyone is straight until they tell me that they are. It would be nice if straight people did the same thing.
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/
Because that covers all heteronormative and legal bases.
And if you don't want the government involved in your marriage, don't get legally married at all. You're not going to be prosecuted for fornication if you just start shacking up.
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
And 'traditional brides' sign the fucking marriage license AT THE TIME THEY HAVE THEIR TRADITIONAL CEREMONY. It doesn't matter when you think you're married or what you think of the government, the government is what legally matters. So your spousal benefits begin at the moment you sign the license. So what you're saying is that you aren't going to accept the tax benefits, insurance benefits, rights of survivorship if (God forbid) something happens to one of you on the way to the wedding, etc? Really? Bull.
But, I am a feminist as is DF. Under the basic idea that women and men have the exact same rights as each other. Both genders are equal, neither is more important. It's about equality. I am a WAHM, because one of us needed to be at home and DF's employment was far more stable and paid radically better. If it had been reversed, he'd be the one at home.
But - your DW is a PPD. It's not traditional. Saying a JoP marriage is not real - which makes your DW not PPD - is so insulting, made worse by your political leanings which generally are for less/no government in civil liberties. I have far too many friends who would give anything to have "just" a JoP marriage, but the government is being invasive, demanding and subjecting citizens to far from universal religious views, in direct and spiteful violations of freedom of religion (which includes FROM religion) and the separation of church and state. The US was founded on religious freedom and now we apparently hate that.
Because prohibition of homosexual marriage is nothing but the force of some religions on all citizens. To truly follow the Constitution, the state would recognize the marriage of any consenting adults and each church could do as they please.
So, if you wish to not want your JoP real marriage, please let my dear friends who have been together and faithful to each other for 23 years have the real marriage.
Guess I'm having a new fangled, hippy wedding.
Does the amount my dad pays for the wedding count as my dowry?
And @sbmini , it's not about political correctness. It's about a simple shift on language so you aren't excluding 10 to 20% of the population (depending on which research numbers you are looking at). It's shitty to say that you are supportive but you can't or wont shift your language in the name of being against political correctness, especially when it costs you nothing. It takes zero or very minimal effort to get off the heterosexual high horse.
When more people actually start giving a shit about their heterosexual superiority, that's when there will be more significant change in society as a whole.
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/
FWIW, in my state (FL), DH and I had to go in to the Clerk's office with our filled out application. There, we had to show proof of id with the application, and sign some forms, including what would be our license. Signing did not take place until we looked it over to make sure all was correct (had to reprint, as at first she had DH's place of birth as Mew York, lol). We signed it after affirming that we weren't drunk, and paid the fee.
HOWEVER, the license was not valid until the actual ceremony (1 month later) when we said our vows before an officiant and had our witnesses (our dads) sign the license. Not until it was stamped and notarized was it official and valid.
Just pointing out that in some states, you must sign the darn thing at the clerks office, but until the officiant signs it, it is not valid, and you avoid a ppd.
THIS.
DWs have become so trendy that now people think they are traditional, "normal", and everyone should be excited to attend. BLECH.
I agree that this is not a ppd. When states deny rights, you gotta do what you gotta do. That's not the same as it just being a hassle (ie. Getting an international marriage license).
I didn't want to have two ceremonies, but the fucking state didn't give me that option. So we had our wedding in 2012 and dud the legal part in 2013 a week after DOMA was overturned.
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/
If one comes from a very conservative background, they can end up in this odd limbo like the OP seems to be in. Assuming she's not trolling.