I don't think it's a PPD

crunchymamaof2 · April 2014

RebeccaB88 said:

Just an honest question on this subject: in states where same sex marriage is legal, do you think both same and opposite sex weddings should fall under the 'have it all on one day' umbrella, since there's really no reason to do it another way? Those who already had a commitment ceremony before it was legally allowed to be legal excepted, of course.

OP, you're in the clear with me. You could also consider a destination wedding to where it is legal, but I realize that comes with its own set of problems.

I'm inclined to say yes, if a wedding can legally be performed in the state of residence than why not have it all in one shot. BUT heterosexual couples have the choice to marry in other states (granted they meet any given requirements) so why should same sex couples be punished? If having the ceremony in a different state is more convenient (like relatives who can't travel are in that state, most of he guest list is in that state) why shouldn't they be able to have the same choices? So, upon further thought I wouldn't have an issue with it.

The only time I'd side eye a same sex ppd is like any other- when they lied and made their guests think they were witnessing the marriage or if they felt the legal ceremony wasn't good enough and threw a big shin dig for those reasons. It's more about the intentions behind it than the actual events.

cmclaire · April 2014

Totally agree with all the other PPs, definitely not a PPD. All the very best to you and your FI!

QueerFemme · April 2014

I think yes, in legal states, same sex couples don't get a free pass for a ppd. Same rules apply.

mrs4everhart · April 2014

OP, allow me to preface my response with a few simple facts: 1. I do not buy in to the whole PPD notion in the first place. It interests me not one iota when, or how, a couple, gay or straight, marries (legally first, or after some type of ceremony, whether it be religious or not, or when they sign their license, if ever). 2. I believe whole-heartedly in marriage equality.

That said, I'm afraid by TK standards, you shouldn't be getting a pass on this, any more than anyone else. I'm basing this on the BS I've laughed at for months now. Things like these little gems:

It matters not what a couple "considers" their relationship status. Only, apparently, what the state considers it. Follow that by examples of women sarcastically "considering" themselves to be the Queen of England, etc. Only once the paperwork is signed is a couple good and truly married. Anything less is play acting. So please, don't inconvenience your guests by making them witness something that isn't official.
A ceremony without a license signing immediately thereafter is somehow a "fake" ceremony, the vows spoken at said ceremony, useless without the document. This all-important time frame is a favorite around here. Anything past an hour or two people start turning in to pumpkins or "speshul snowflakes...."
Speaking of those so-called "speshul snowflakes" apparently, according to post after post on this sight no one has ever had mitigating circumstances that provided them a free pass, not even basic empathy, really. Apparently, one has to either face the cold, hard realities of adulthood and scrap their plans for the wedding they want or bear the burden of considering themselves special, deserving of all things the women of TK do certainly NOT agree they deserve. Oh, those right there are some hot-button words, let me tell you! "Deserve." "Entitled." I could go on all day.

It was not lost on me that you and your FI cannot legally wed in your home state. I get that. However, you do have a choice. You can plan a wedding in the next state over, and have your ceremony AND your legal docs all taken care of in one day. You state your opposition to this is laziness. I cannot begin to believe the women of TK's E-board are giving you a pass on doing things the way you are proposing because you are (admittedly) LAZY!!! I see they are wrapping their acceptance neatly in socially acceptable civil disquiet. It's okay for gay people to now be lazy and not wed in an etiquette approved manner because they may have some simple inconveniences to overcome! But other individuals have to forfeit their dream weddings if their circumstances lead them to a so-called "PPD" lest they be labeled entitled, spoiled and clearly not adult. Hmm. If this was a woman stating she was going to legally marry her military FI for example, prior to his/her deployment then have a ceremony/reception when and if s/he returns, that would be met with advice such as, "sorry, you don't get to that. You have choices and decisions to make. That's what being an adult means." Or a couple who want to extend health benefits, etc.to the other. Nope, they either have to have a JOP ceremony then call it a day or figure out a way to afford the dream wedding immediately (or go without health benefits). But if someone is feeling lazy, well then, by all means......

Now, obviously, on a personal level I don't mind which order you have your ceremony, then when you take care of your paperwork. I wish you and your partner a long and happy marriage. Just as I extend those sentiments to every couple who wishes to be married and may have some hiccup or another that prevents them from accomplishing the feel-good part within the same hour as the paperwork part. Truly, do not spend any time concerning yourself with a concept that only exists in one place, and that is right here on this site. :-)

huskypuppy14 · April 2014

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, allow me to preface my response with a few simple facts: 1. I do not buy in to the whole PPD notion in the first place. It interests me not one iota when, or how, a couple, gay or straight, marries (legally first, or after some type of ceremony, whether it be religious or not, or when they sign their license, if ever). 2. I believe whole-heartedly in marriage equality.

That said, I'm afraid by TK standards, you shouldn't be getting a pass on this, any more than anyone else. I'm basing this on the BS I've laughed at for months now. Things like these little gems:

It matters not what a couple "considers" their relationship status. Only, apparently, what the state considers it. Follow that by examples of women sarcastically "considering" themselves to be the Queen of England, etc. Only once the paperwork is signed is a couple good and truly married. Anything less is play acting. So please, don't inconvenience your guests by making them witness something that isn't official.
A ceremony without a license signing immediately thereafter is somehow a "fake" ceremony, the vows spoken at said ceremony, useless without the document. This all-important time frame is a favorite around here. Anything past an hour or two people start turning in to pumpkins or "speshul snowflakes...."
Speaking of those so-called "speshul snowflakes" apparently, according to post after post on this sight no one has ever had mitigating circumstances that provided them a free pass, not even basic empathy, really. Apparently, one has to either face the cold, hard realities of adulthood and scrap their plans for the wedding they want or bear the burden of considering themselves special, deserving of all things the women of TK do certainly NOT agree they deserve. Oh, those right there are some hot-button words, let me tell you! "Deserve." "Entitled." I could go on all day.
It was not lost on me that you and your FI cannot legally wed in your home state. I get that. However, you do have a choice. You can plan a wedding in the next state over, and have your ceremony AND your legal docs all taken care of in one day. You state your opposition to this is laziness. I cannot begin to believe the women of TK's E-board are giving you a pass on doing things the way you are proposing because you are (admittedly) LAZY!!! I see they are wrapping their acceptance neatly in socially acceptable civil disquiet. It's okay for gay people to now be lazy and not wed in an etiquette approved manner because they may have some simple inconveniences to overcome! But other individuals have to forfeit their dream weddings if their circumstances lead them to a so-called "PPD" lest they be labeled entitled, spoiled and clearly not adult. Hmm. If this was a woman stating she was going to legally marry her military FI for example, prior to his/her deployment then have a ceremony/reception when and if s/he returns, that would be met with advice such as, "sorry, you don't get to that. You have choices and decisions to make. That's what being an adult means." Or a couple who want to extend health benefits, etc.to the other. Nope, they either have to have a JOP ceremony then call it a day or figure out a way to afford the dream wedding immediately (or go without health benefits). But if someone is feeling lazy, well then, by all means......

Now, obviously, on a personal level I don't mind which order you have your ceremony, then when you take care of your paperwork. I wish you and your partner a long and happy marriage. Just as I extend those sentiments to every couple who wishes to be married and may have some hiccup or another that prevents them from accomplishing the feel-good part within the same hour as the paperwork part. Truly, do not spend any time concerning yourself with a concept that only exists in one place, and that is right here on this site. :-)

Seriously! You are absurd. Go away.

mrs4everhart · April 2014

What's absurd @laurynm84, is telling stacks of women they have to do things a certain way in order for their wedding plans to be okay, then giving a pass to someone who has options to avoid this very type of (supposed) faux pas, but is being (admittedly) too lazy to exercise said options, and everyone disguising the pass as some sort of "down with the man" protest. Bullshit. She has a very viable option to do exactly as all of you have recommended time and again to other women/couples. She can go to her neighboring state and have a wedding where the papers are signed right then and there in addition to a ceremony of their choosing. Is it mildly inconvenient? Perhaps. Any more inconvenient than half the advice to just suck up whatever issue a couple is having or forfeit their dream wedding? I think not.

And oh, I'll be going away alright! In less than 5 months we'll be sipping boat drinks on a tropical beach. And not once will the make believe notion of a PPD once cross my mind!

pinkshorts27 · April 2014

The reason they are given a pass is because they are being discriminated against. You and other PPD couples are not. It is not just mildly inconvenient. It is completely unjust. It is unjust that straight couples can pay the 60 dollars or whatever and get married with no other costs, but that gay couples have to, as in are required to be considered married in that specific state, pay travel costs as well as possible hotel costs if there is a wait period between applying for a licence and making it legal. It is unjust that they are legally denied the same rights as straight people.

So if they want to throw a giant fucking party before they are unjustly forced to travel to another state, they are more than welcome to. I also think most people would give them a pass on that as a common courtesy. They are not too lazy to do it right in their state, they just don't have the option. That is different than choosing to travel when you have an option to do it in house (or at your home state). Much different.

I would give the same pass to any couple that is being unjustly persecuted.

QueerFemme · April 2014

STBMrsEverhart said:
What's absurd @laurynm84, is telling stacks of women they have to do things a certain way in order for their wedding plans to be okay, then giving a pass to someone who has options to avoid this very type of (supposed) faux pas, but is being (admittedly) too lazy to exercise said options, and everyone disguising the pass as some sort of "down with the man" protest. Bullshit. She has a very viable option to do exactly as all of you have recommended time and again to other women/couples. She can go to her neighboring state and have a wedding where the papers are signed right then and there in addition to a ceremony of their choosing. Is it mildly inconvenient? Perhaps. Any more inconvenient than half the advice to just suck up whatever issue a couple is having or forfeit their dream wedding? I think not.

And oh, I'll be going away alright! In less than 5 months we'll be sipping boat drinks on a tropical beach. And not once will the make believe notion of a PPD once cross my mind!

The state she lives in prohibits her marriage. She is allowed to be lazy and not travel and ask all of her guests to travel to a neighboring state. She shouldn't be forced to have a destination wedding because her state government is full of assholes.

The fact that you can't understand the difference between someone that doesn't feel compelled to get married in another state when they are being legally discriminated against, and someone who gets legally married for insurance reasons, military rights, etc. And then throws another fake wedding later, is completely ridiculous.

When you have the availability for a legal wedding in your place of residence, you get one wedding. You have your weddings at the same time as your legal ceremony. When your state screws you, you do what you have to do to make it work.

QueerFemme · April 2014

And to add, it's totally fucking shitty for you to even suggest that she should be even a tiny bit inconvenienced to get married. You have sounded like an asshole plenty of times in plenty of posts, but I think this one tops the list.

mrs4everhart · April 2014

QueerFemme said:

What's absurd @laurynm84, is telling stacks of women they have to do things a certain way in order for their wedding plans to be okay, then giving a pass to someone who has options to avoid this very type of (supposed) faux pas, but is being (admittedly) too lazy to exercise said options, and everyone disguising the pass as some sort of "down with the man" protest. Bullshit. She has a very viable option to do exactly as all of you have recommended time and again to other women/couples. She can go to her neighboring state and have a wedding where the papers are signed right then and there in addition to a ceremony of their choosing. Is it mildly inconvenient? Perhaps. Any more inconvenient than half the advice to just suck up whatever issue a couple is having or forfeit their dream wedding? I think not.

And oh, I'll be going away alright! In less than 5 months we'll be sipping boat drinks on a tropical beach. And not once will the make believe notion of a PPD once cross my mind!
The state she lives in prohibits her marriage. She is allowed to be lazy and not travel and ask all of her guests to travel to a neighboring state. She shouldn't be forced to have a destination wedding because her state government is full of assholes. The fact that you can't understand the difference between someone that doesn't feel compelled to get married in another state when they are being legally discriminated against, and someone who gets legally married for insurance reasons, military rights, etc. And then throws another fake wedding later, is completely ridiculous. When you have the availability for a legal wedding in your place of residence, you get one wedding. You have your weddings at the same time as your legal ceremony. When your state screws you, you do what you have to do to make it work.

I don't disagree it is unjust. I don't disagree that it is arcane and ridiculous that the state she chooses to live in discriminates against the OP and others like her. I also don't care for the fact that the state I choose to live in allows businesses who offer (employee paid-for) insurance benefits to their employees to decide whose relationships said benefits can (and can't) be extended to or not, but that's the reality of where I live. We've made decisions based on that, and are satisfied with the arrangement we've come up with. I guess you can say our state laws screwed us, and we did what we had to to make it work. I can assume the OP is as satisfied with her decision as she can be given the circumstances. I'm personally not the least bit offended by what the OP proposes to do. I'm only offended by the hypocrisy I find on this site, over and over again. That you think I'm an asshole is your problem, not mine.

Cookie Pusher · April 2014

Since same-sex marriage is not legal in their state, they aren't lying to their guests and passing off the ceremony they're having in their home state is legal and valid. Lying to your guests is, to me, the worst part of the whole PPD thing. And wanting your guests to feel a certain way at your fake ceremony is not justification to lie to them, or whatever BS reason you've been giving, MrsEverhart.

VulgarGirl · April 2014

I want to point out, I'm not just lazy, I'm cheap too! A wedding in neighbor state would be considerably more expensive, and that's not counting travel/lodging costs for us/our guests. So, lazy and cheap. I like to be upfront about who I am. My cheap laziness is also why, if not for FI, I'd be sustaining mostly on fast food.

@blueeys90, @QueerFemme, and @CookiePusher said it best though as to why I figured it wasn't a PPD to begin with. Though if the majority had said it was a PPD, I probably would've just owned it. Might have even put something in my signature. Planning a PPD because my state sucks ass. Something classy and elegant like that.

QueerFemme · April 2014

STBMrsEverhart said:

QueerFemme said:

STBMrsEverhart said:
What's absurd @laurynm84, is telling stacks of women they have to do things a certain way in order for their wedding plans to be okay, then giving a pass to someone who has options to avoid this very type of (supposed) faux pas, but is being (admittedly) too lazy to exercise said options, and everyone disguising the pass as some sort of "down with the man" protest. Bullshit. She has a very viable option to do exactly as all of you have recommended time and again to other women/couples. She can go to her neighboring state and have a wedding where the papers are signed right then and there in addition to a ceremony of their choosing. Is it mildly inconvenient? Perhaps. Any more inconvenient than half the advice to just suck up whatever issue a couple is having or forfeit their dream wedding? I think not.

And oh, I'll be going away alright! In less than 5 months we'll be sipping boat drinks on a tropical beach. And not once will the make believe notion of a PPD once cross my mind!
The state she lives in prohibits her marriage. She is allowed to be lazy and not travel and ask all of her guests to travel to a neighboring state. She shouldn't be forced to have a destination wedding because her state government is full of assholes.

The fact that you can't understand the difference between someone that doesn't feel compelled to get married in another state when they are being legally discriminated against, and someone who gets legally married for insurance reasons, military rights, etc. And then throws another fake wedding later, is completely ridiculous.

When you have the availability for a legal wedding in your place of residence, you get one wedding. You have your weddings at the same time as your legal ceremony. When your state screws you, you do what you have to do to make it work.

I don't disagree it is unjust. I don't disagree that it is arcane and ridiculous that the state she chooses to live in discriminates against the OP and others like her. I also don't care for the fact that the state I choose to live in allows businesses who offer (employee paid-for) insurance benefits to their employees to decide whose relationships said benefits can (and can't) be extended to or not, but that's the reality of where I live. We've made decisions based on that, and are satisfied with the arrangement we've come up with. I guess you can say our state laws screwed us, and we did what we had to to make it work. I can assume the OP is as satisfied with her decision as she can be given the circumstances. I'm personally not the least bit offended by what the OP proposes to do. I'm only offended by the hypocrisy I find on this site, over and over again. That you think I'm an asshole is your problem, not mine.

You had the opportunity to have your legal wedding and your PPD all on the same day in the city you live in, but you chose not to. Nobody screwed you. I realize no one is ever going to change your mind about your fake redo, and that's fine. Have your PPD and hopefully your friends and family members won't talk about how tacky you are. But don't compare your PPD to someone that has no legal right of marriage in the state they live in. Again, even implying that makes you sound like an asshole.

kkitkat79 · April 2014

STBMrsEverhart said:

What's absurd @laurynm84, is telling stacks of women they have to do things a certain way in order for their wedding plans to be okay, then giving a pass to someone who has options to avoid this very type of (supposed) faux pas, but is being (admittedly) too lazy to exercise said options, and everyone disguising the pass as some sort of "down with the man" protest. Bullshit. She has a very viable option to do exactly as all of you have recommended time and again to other women/couples. She can go to her neighboring state and have a wedding where the papers are signed right then and there in addition to a ceremony of their choosing. Is it mildly inconvenient? Perhaps. Any more inconvenient than half the advice to just suck up whatever issue a couple is having or forfeit their dream wedding? I think not.

And oh, I'll be going away alright! In less than 5 months we'll be sipping boat drinks on a tropical beach. And not once will the make believe notion of a PPD once cross my mind!

The difference is that her MOST desirable option is not available to her through no fault of her own. She is legally prohibited from exercising her most desirable option. All other scenarios be it insurance, deployment, immigration etc all fall in the category of "life is full of tough choices and is unfair". This might be a controversial opinion, but no one has a right to "stuff" (be it healthcare, tax breaks, what have you). But everyone has the right to be free to marry whoever they want wherever they want provided both parties are in agreement and no one else is harmed. So if a government infringes on that right you do what you have to.

chibiyui · April 2014

STBMrsEverhart said:

OP, allow me to preface my response with a few simple facts: 1. I do not buy in to the whole PPD notion in the first place. It interests me not one iota when, or how, a couple, gay or straight, marries (legally first, or after some type of ceremony, whether it be religious or not, or when they sign their license, if ever). 2. I believe whole-heartedly in marriage equality.

That said, I'm afraid by TK standards, you shouldn't be getting a pass on this, any more than anyone else. I'm basing this on the BS I've laughed at for months now. Things like these little gems:

It matters not what a couple "considers" their relationship status. Only, apparently, what the state considers it. Follow that by examples of women sarcastically "considering" themselves to be the Queen of England, etc. Only once the paperwork is signed is a couple good and truly married. Anything less is play acting. So please, don't inconvenience your guests by making them witness something that isn't official.
A ceremony without a license signing immediately thereafter is somehow a "fake" ceremony, the vows spoken at said ceremony, useless without the document. This all-important time frame is a favorite around here. Anything past an hour or two people start turning in to pumpkins or "speshul snowflakes...."
Speaking of those so-called "speshul snowflakes" apparently, according to post after post on this sight no one has ever had mitigating circumstances that provided them a free pass, not even basic empathy, really. Apparently, one has to either face the cold, hard realities of adulthood and scrap their plans for the wedding they want or bear the burden of considering themselves special, deserving of all things the women of TK do certainly NOT agree they deserve. Oh, those right there are some hot-button words, let me tell you! "Deserve." "Entitled." I could go on all day.
It was not lost on me that you and your FI cannot legally wed in your home state. I get that. However, you do have a choice. You can plan a wedding in the next state over, and have your ceremony AND your legal docs all taken care of in one day. You state your opposition to this is laziness. I cannot begin to believe the women of TK's E-board are giving you a pass on doing things the way you are proposing because you are (admittedly) LAZY!!! I see they are wrapping their acceptance neatly in socially acceptable civil disquiet. It's okay for gay people to now be lazy and not wed in an etiquette approved manner because they may have some simple inconveniences to overcome! But other individuals have to forfeit their dream weddings if their circumstances lead them to a so-called "PPD" lest they be labeled entitled, spoiled and clearly not adult. Hmm. If this was a woman stating she was going to legally marry her military FI for example, prior to his/her deployment then have a ceremony/reception when and if s/he returns, that would be met with advice such as, "sorry, you don't get to that. You have choices and decisions to make. That's what being an adult means." Or a couple who want to extend health benefits, etc.to the other. Nope, they either have to have a JOP ceremony then call it a day or figure out a way to afford the dream wedding immediately (or go without health benefits). But if someone is feeling lazy, well then, by all means......

Now, obviously, on a personal level I don't mind which order you have your ceremony, then when you take care of your paperwork. I wish you and your partner a long and happy marriage. Just as I extend those sentiments to every couple who wishes to be married and may have some hiccup or another that prevents them from accomplishing the feel-good part within the same hour as the paperwork part. Truly, do not spend any time concerning yourself with a concept that only exists in one place, and that is right here on this site. :-)

Seriously. This is you.

mizangi · April 2014

@MagicInk - I have one comment that has not been mentioned yet. I know no one gets married thinking "well, maybe we'll get divorced later" however, one thing to just think about when signing your documents in a neighboring state is the legal repercussions should you ever end up divorced. Check out this article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101080729

That being said, I want to congratulate you and wish you much happiness!

I don't think it's a PPD

Re: I don't think it's a PPD

Choose Another Board

Search Boards