SO RSVP without invitation

VicTim328 · December 2015

So I'm not sure how to handle my uncle. Invitations are going out in a week.

He is in the process of divorcing his current wife (auntie #6), who lives on a different continent and does not have permission to re-enter the US based on her visa status. Given the marital status, I didn't give him a guest.

He is coming to our wedding with his daughter and 3 grandkids. Somehow he just RSVP'd on our website (didn't know it was active) for everyone and then for a date for himself. It's a former FI of his from 20+ years ago, who lives on the opposite coast. Not wanting to break etiquette, I called another uncle to just ask if he was "seeing" this other woman again, and he said no, but he would double check. Uncle 2 got back to me and said he hasn't seen or talked to her, but saw on FB that she just got divorced again. typically she is his rebound fling in between marriages (basically, she is leap day, comes around for one day every 4 years), but he hasn't considered her anything since the engagement broke. So technically not a social unit for over 20 years.

How should I handle this? I didn't give him a date in my initial count, and my invites are stuffed and labeled.

I'm irritated that he assumed he had a date, and somehow RSVP'd without an invitation. If it was an actual relationship, I'd invite her, but there hasn't even been contact between the two of them since her divorce!

If it happened naturally, and at Christmas he said "Oh, Linda and I are seeing each other again!" I'd be fine and say "bring her." I think I'm just annoyed....

AddieCake · December 2015

Call him and tell him the invitation will be just for him and that you can't accommodate this woman.

ETA: Not sure why you needed to point out he is on his 6th marriage.

thisismynickname2 · December 2015

Wait, are his daughter and grandkids invited by you, just not a plus one for him? Or did he take the liberty of RSVPing for himself plus five? Confused.

But yes, you'll have to explain to him who is invited and who is not, unfortunately.

VicTim328 · December 2015

His daughter and her kids are invited separately, but they are all traveling together. He RSVP'd for everybody (his daughter, grandkids, father, brother, himself and this woman)

I only mentioned the 6th marriage to explain that there is a regular pattern of him rebounding with this woman. This would make the 5th time, and we've all been waiting for it...

wink0erin · December 2015

Is there a way to remove the web RSVP thing? Don't invite the fling unless they are a couple at the time invites are sent out. You might need to contact him and the other family members if they don't RSVP on the actual invites.

SP29 · December 2015

It was rude of him to RSVP when he doesn't even have an invite.

I would mail your current invite as planned, and then call him up and figure out what is going on with this relationship. I mean, if they ARE back together she should be invited, but if he tells you he just thought it nice to bring her, you can let him know the invite is only for himself (and his kids, if underage).

Jen4948 · December 2015

Modified somewhat. I would contact your uncle and find out if he considers himself in a relationship with this woman or just a date for the day. If this is an ongoing relationship, invite the woman, but if not, let him know that his forthcoming invitation is only for him, includes no one else, and no one else can be accommodated with it.

MyNameIsNot · December 2015

She lives on the opposite coast, as in she'll be flying across the country to attend your wedding?

I'm pretty sure he's seeing her again. You don't fly across the country for a fling's niece's wedding.

I would just let him take her regardless. It's one person. I'd be annoyed too, but is one person really going to make that much of a difference?

00kim00 · December 2015

Personally, I would not invite the fling. "In the process of divorcing"=currently married. If one of my guests is married, I'm not going to invite his woman on the side instead of his wife. A wedding and like the worst place to be encouraging breaking marriage vows.

I'd follow PP's advice to let him know you cannot accommodate her, and do it sooner rather than later so she doesn't book a plane ticket

holyguacamole79 · December 2015

MyNameIsNot said:

She lives on the opposite coast, as in she'll be flying across the country to attend your wedding?

I'm pretty sure he's seeing her again. You don't fly across the country for a fling's niece's wedding.

I would just let him take her regardless. It's one person. I'd be annoyed too, but is one person really going to make that much of a difference?

I agree. We always say that if a guest considers himself/herself in a relationship, you invite their SO. Your other uncle may or may not know if they are together or if she's just a "date".

I would call and say, "I see you RSVPed that you're bringing Lisa .... I didn't realize you two were seeing each other again" and see where it goes.

OliveOilsMom · December 2015

00kim00 said:

Personally, I would not invite the fling. "In the process of divorcing"=currently married. If one of my guests is married, I'm not going to invite his woman on the side instead of his wife. A wedding and like the worst place to be encouraging breaking marriage vows. I'd follow PP's advice to let him know you cannot accommodate her, and do it sooner rather than later so she doesn't book a plane ticket

That is pretty harsh. Divorce can take years to complete. You would really withhold a person's SO from an invitation because they are legally still married? Besides, there are two people in a marriage, how can you be so sure which person broke the marriage vows?

banana468 · December 2015

OliveOilsMom said:

00kim00 said:

Personally, I would not invite the fling. "In the process of divorcing"=currently married. If one of my guests is married, I'm not going to invite his woman on the side instead of his wife. A wedding and like the worst place to be encouraging breaking marriage vows. I'd follow PP's advice to let him know you cannot accommodate her, and do it sooner rather than later so she doesn't book a plane ticket

That is pretty harsh. Divorce can take years to complete. You would really withhold a person's SO from an invitation because they are legally still married? Besides, there are two people in a marriage, how can you be so sure which person broke the marriage vows?

This.

I'm not one to invite an adulterer but I have had friends go through divorce and once they separated, they were done. That it took months for the state court system to catch up didn't mean anything.

Just like we call BS on the "no ring no bring" rule, the relationship ends when the couple mutually decides it's over.

pinkcow13 · December 2015

Idk if we can say that they are together. Sometimes a fling will always be a fling, and nothing more. Or sometimes one party will just always keep the other at bay (is that the expression?). I have a friend who kept going back to the same guy even though he saw her as nothing more than a fling. The best solution would be to either let him bring her as a plus 1, or ask him if they are in a relationship.

SP29 · December 2015

00kim00 said:

Personally, I would not invite the fling. "In the process of divorcing"=currently married. If one of my guests is married, I'm not going to invite his woman on the side instead of his wife. A wedding and like the worst place to be encouraging breaking marriage vows. I'd follow PP's advice to let him know you cannot accommodate her, and do it sooner rather than later so she doesn't book a plane ticket

My parents are not legally divorced, but they've been separated for 7ish years now. My dad owns a home with his current girlfriend, and my mom and her bf are looking for their own home. My parents are no longer on each other's benefits or named in each other's will, etc. They just haven't done the legal divorce.

Don't assume just because someone is going through the process of a divorce that they are still with that same person, or how long it's been.

photokitty · December 2015

SP29 said:

00kim00 said:

Personally, I would not invite the fling. "In the process of divorcing"=currently married. If one of my guests is married, I'm not going to invite his woman on the side instead of his wife. A wedding and like the worst place to be encouraging breaking marriage vows.

I'd follow PP's advice to let him know you cannot accommodate her, and do it sooner rather than later so she doesn't book a plane ticket

My parents are not legally divorced, but they've been separated for 7ish years now. My dad owns a home with his current girlfriend, and my mom and her bf are looking for their own home. My parents are no longer on each other's benefits or named in each other's will, etc. They just haven't done the legal divorce.

Don't assume just because someone is going through the process of a divorce that they are still with that same person, or how long it's been.

**********box**********

I'm sorry, I was in agreement until this example. Either you are a social unit or you file for divorce. I would not invite the side BF/GF of a married person, I would invite their legal spouse, as that's the social unit. Your example doesn't include any "in process of divorce" so the social unit is pretty murky as to who is actual part of it.

I would compare this to a ppd - make adult decisions and deal with the consequences. If you don't want to legally separate then you are a social unit with your spouse. Once you are married you are married until someone dies or you take the steps to legally end it. If you are waiting for the state to approve a filing, that's one thing, but not even filing - that means you married and can't be a part of a second social unit.

Jen4948 · December 2015

photokitty said:

00kim00 said:

Personally, I would not invite the fling. "In the process of divorcing"=currently married. If one of my guests is married, I'm not going to invite his woman on the side instead of his wife. A wedding and like the worst place to be encouraging breaking marriage vows. I'd follow PP's advice to let him know you cannot accommodate her, and do it sooner rather than later so she doesn't book a plane ticket

My parents are not legally divorced, but they've been separated for 7ish years now. My dad owns a home with his current girlfriend, and my mom and her bf are looking for their own home. My parents are no longer on each other's benefits or named in each other's will, etc. They just haven't done the legal divorce.

Don't assume just because someone is going through the process of a divorce that they are still with that same person, or how long it's been.
**********box********** I'm sorry, I was in agreement until this example. Either you are a social unit or you file for divorce. I would not invite the side BF/GF of a married person, I would invite their legal spouse, as that's the social unit. Your example doesn't include any "in process of divorce" so the social unit is pretty murky as to who is actual part of it. I would compare this to a ppd - make adult decisions and deal with the consequences. If you don't want to legally separate then you are a social unit with your spouse. Once you are married you are married until someone dies or you take the steps to legally end it. If you are waiting for the state to approve a filing, that's one thing, but not even filing - that means you married and can't be a part of a second social unit.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this.

Since it doesn't take the legal system to create social units, I don't believe it takes the legal system to end social units either.

If two people live together who aren't married to each other, they're considered a social unit, so if two married people do not live with each other and do not socialize together, it shouldn't require filing for divorce or separation to no longer consider them a social unit. It's really no one's business but theirs why there's no legal filing.

We say that relationships are not for hosts to question when determining who constitutes a social unit, and insisting that couples who haven't chosen to file for whatever reason but don't live or socialize together are still a social unit seems to me to be doing exactly that.

AddieCake · December 2015

My husband was still married when we got together and when we moved in together. His wife was living with her new boyfriend, the man she cheated with. The social units were pretty clear, regardless of the paperwork.

SP29 · December 2015

Exactly Jen and Addie.

People who are not married are significant others in many cases- dating, living together, engaged. And those people can break up the next day and be done with it. My parents have not had any form of a "marriage" for 7 years. They are not on each other's benefits, wills or listed as next of kin. I don't see any form of a PPD here- it's not like they've had any sort of "ceremony" or are pretending to be married to their current SO- they have amicably split themselves and their personal effects and are now in new relationships.

DH's mom still has her married last name, despite being divorced for 25 years. They have NO relationship what-so-ever; they do not talk. Personally, I don't know why she'd keep the name (from my own feelings on the divorce), except that it was probably easier than filing the paperwork for a name change again. Didn't do the legal work to change her name- definitely not a social unit with DH's dad.

photokitty · December 2015

SP29 said:
Exactly Jen and Addie.

People who are not married are significant others in many cases- dating, living together, engaged. And those people can break up the next day and be done with it. My parents have not had any form of a "marriage" for 7 years. They are not on each other's benefits, wills or listed as next of kin. I don't see any form of a PPD here- it's not like they've had any sort of "ceremony" or are pretending to be married to their current SO- they have amicably split themselves and their personal effects and are now in new relationships.

DH's mom still has her married last name, despite being divorced for 25 years. They have NO relationship what-so-ever; they do not talk. Personally, I don't know why she'd keep the name (from my own feelings on the divorce), except that it was probably easier than filing the paperwork for a name change again. Didn't do the legal work to change her name- definitely not a social unit with DH's dad.

Just curious, why are they still married? There must be some reason they haven't bothered to get divorced. Perhaps bc of their tax filings? Bc they would have to file jointly or at least married filing separately. That's why I think it is like a ppd. If it is to reap the benefits of being married I don't see how that's different than the justifications that SS use to justify a ppd. (I had to go on his insurance, he was being deployed, we needed to save more money, etc)

All the other examples include a desire to legally dissolve the social unit. In all the other examples I agree, the social unit is dissolved. I thought I made that clear In my first post. Like a PP said, if you're just waiting for the paperwork to catch up. Filing with the intent of divorcing ends the social unit.

Sorry, but I don't get stating married and then dating and living with someone else. Choosing to stay married either means you are in a social unit or you are pretending to be in one to reap some sort of benefit, be it taxes, healthcare, financial or otherwise. They are "pretending" to be married...well not actually, you don't have to pretend to be married when you are still married.

Not changing your name had nothing to do with being in a social unit. I didn't take my husband's last name...are you suggesting we're not a social unit bc I didn't? She got divorced, it doesn't matter whether she kept the name or not.

Jen4948 · December 2015

photokitty said:

SP29 said:
Exactly Jen and Addie.

People who are not married are significant others in many cases- dating, living together, engaged. And those people can break up the next day and be done with it. My parents have not had any form of a "marriage" for 7 years. They are not on each other's benefits, wills or listed as next of kin. I don't see any form of a PPD here- it's not like they've had any sort of "ceremony" or are pretending to be married to their current SO- they have amicably split themselves and their personal effects and are now in new relationships.

DH's mom still has her married last name, despite being divorced for 25 years. They have NO relationship what-so-ever; they do not talk. Personally, I don't know why she'd keep the name (from my own feelings on the divorce), except that it was probably easier than filing the paperwork for a name change again. Didn't do the legal work to change her name- definitely not a social unit with DH's dad.
Just curious, why are they still married? There must be some reason they haven't bothered to get divorced. Perhaps bc of their tax filings? Bc they would have to file jointly or at least married filing separately. That's why I think it is like a ppd. If it is to reap the benefits of being married I don't see how that's different than the justifications that SS use to justify a ppd. (I had to go on his insurance, he was being deployed, we needed to save more money, etc)

All the other examples include a desire to legally dissolve the social unit. In all the other examples I agree, the social unit is dissolved. I thought I made that clear In my first post. Like a PP said, if you're just waiting for the paperwork to catch up. Filing with the intent of divorcing ends the social unit.

Sorry, but I don't get stating married and then dating and living with someone else. Choosing to stay married either means you are in a social unit or you are pretending to be in one to reap some sort of benefit, be it taxes, healthcare, financial or otherwise. They are "pretending" to be married...well not actually, you fight have to pretend to be married when you are still married.

Not changing your name had nothing to do with being in a social unit. I didn't take my husband's last name...are you suggesting we're not a social unit bc I didn't? She got divorced, it doesn't matter whether she kept the name or not.

Well, people might not divorce for religious reasons, or because the other person is missing, or "for their children's sake," or for financial reasons, or the other person is contesting the divorce, or who the fuck knows why besides the couple?

And for social unit purposes, it's no one else's business why. For all practical purposes, they are no longer a functioning social unit, so it makes no fucking sense to keep treating them as though they are instead of recognizing their current real social situations.

photokitty · December 2015

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

SP29 said:
Exactly Jen and Addie.

People who are not married are significant others in many cases- dating, living together, engaged. And those people can break up the next day and be done with it. My parents have not had any form of a "marriage" for 7 years. They are not on each other's benefits, wills or listed as next of kin. I don't see any form of a PPD here- it's not like they've had any sort of "ceremony" or are pretending to be married to their current SO- they have amicably split themselves and their personal effects and are now in new relationships.

DH's mom still has her married last name, despite being divorced for 25 years. They have NO relationship what-so-ever; they do not talk. Personally, I don't know why she'd keep the name (from my own feelings on the divorce), except that it was probably easier than filing the paperwork for a name change again. Didn't do the legal work to change her name- definitely not a social unit with DH's dad.
Just curious, why are they still married? There must be some reason they haven't bothered to get divorced. Perhaps bc of their tax filings? Bc they would have to file jointly or at least married filing separately. That's why I think it is like a ppd. If it is to reap the benefits of being married I don't see how that's different than the justifications that SS use to justify a ppd. (I had to go on his insurance, he was being deployed, we needed to save more money, etc)

All the other examples include a desire to legally dissolve the social unit. In all the other examples I agree, the social unit is dissolved. I thought I made that clear In my first post. Like a PP said, if you're just waiting for the paperwork to catch up. Filing with the intent of divorcing ends the social unit.

Sorry, but I don't get stating married and then dating and living with someone else. Choosing to stay married either means you are in a social unit or you are pretending to be in one to reap some sort of benefit, be it taxes, healthcare, financial or otherwise. They are "pretending" to be married...well not actually, you fight have to pretend to be married when you are still married.

Not changing your name had nothing to do with being in a social unit. I didn't take my husband's last name...are you suggesting we're not a social unit bc I didn't? She got divorced, it doesn't matter whether she kept the name or not.
Well, people might not divorce for religious reasons, or because the other person is missing, or "for their children's sake," or for financial reasons, or the other person is contesting the divorce, or who the fuck knows why besides the couple?

And for social unit purposes, it's no one else's business why. For all practical purposes, they are no longer a functioning social unit, so it makes no fucking sense to keep treating them as though they are instead of recognizing their current real social situations.

Sounds pretty special snowflake to me....We are legally married, but we don't consider ourselves married, so ya know we're not REALLY married. So let's have a ppd or start new social units!

Good job coming up with all those lame excuses...very impressive.

Missing - are you serious? In the example we're working with no one is missing, they both live in houses with someone other than their spouse. Like what? The movie survivor? Even Helen hunt had Tom hanks declared dead, then she remarried. You can file for divorce If your spouse runs off never to be seen again, even if you don't think they are dead.

Not divorcing "for the children's sake" but living with someone else and calling them your bf/gf - I'm sure the kids won't notice that one. Excellent choice!

Financial reasons, than your probably cheating someone- be it the government or your benefits...we tell ppd ss the same thing. I'm not going give an etiquette pass for fraud.

And please, religious reasons - really??? - I don't know a single religion that says it's better to stay married and live in sin with someone else.

Contesting the divorce? That's paperwork. The desire to divorce has been stated and the intent to do so exists. As I've said 3 times now, they aren't a social unit.

As usual, you have a bunch of excuses strewn in with a shitload of profanity and anger. Look, I can cuss too, does that make my stance more compelling?

Consenting adults can do what ever they want, but I would not knowingly invite the side piece of a married person. If you don't want to be married, or you want to be with someone else, it's pretty simple - get divorced. Or at least tell the court system you want to get divorced. Otherwise you are married.

I side eye anyone who is so flippant about marriage, but maybe that's bc 2 years ago my sister and her wife had to go out of state to get married. But you know, a marriage is just paperwork apparently - so stay married, reap the benefits and live with someone else and call that your social unit, bc it's no big deal, just some legal bullshit that too many take for granted.

Jen4948 · December 2015

photokitty said:

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

SP29 said:
Exactly Jen and Addie.

People who are not married are significant others in many cases- dating, living together, engaged. And those people can break up the next day and be done with it. My parents have not had any form of a "marriage" for 7 years. They are not on each other's benefits, wills or listed as next of kin. I don't see any form of a PPD here- it's not like they've had any sort of "ceremony" or are pretending to be married to their current SO- they have amicably split themselves and their personal effects and are now in new relationships.

DH's mom still has her married last name, despite being divorced for 25 years. They have NO relationship what-so-ever; they do not talk. Personally, I don't know why she'd keep the name (from my own feelings on the divorce), except that it was probably easier than filing the paperwork for a name change again. Didn't do the legal work to change her name- definitely not a social unit with DH's dad.
Just curious, why are they still married? There must be some reason they haven't bothered to get divorced. Perhaps bc of their tax filings? Bc they would have to file jointly or at least married filing separately. That's why I think it is like a ppd. If it is to reap the benefits of being married I don't see how that's different than the justifications that SS use to justify a ppd. (I had to go on his insurance, he was being deployed, we needed to save more money, etc)

All the other examples include a desire to legally dissolve the social unit. In all the other examples I agree, the social unit is dissolved. I thought I made that clear In my first post. Like a PP said, if you're just waiting for the paperwork to catch up. Filing with the intent of divorcing ends the social unit.

Sorry, but I don't get stating married and then dating and living with someone else. Choosing to stay married either means you are in a social unit or you are pretending to be in one to reap some sort of benefit, be it taxes, healthcare, financial or otherwise. They are "pretending" to be married...well not actually, you fight have to pretend to be married when you are still married.

Not changing your name had nothing to do with being in a social unit. I didn't take my husband's last name...are you suggesting we're not a social unit bc I didn't? She got divorced, it doesn't matter whether she kept the name or not.
Well, people might not divorce for religious reasons, or because the other person is missing, or "for their children's sake," or for financial reasons, or the other person is contesting the divorce, or who the fuck knows why besides the couple?

And for social unit purposes, it's no one else's business why. For all practical purposes, they are no longer a functioning social unit, so it makes no fucking sense to keep treating them as though they are instead of recognizing their current real social situations.
Sounds pretty special snowflake to me....We are legally married, but we don't consider ourselves married, so ya know we're not REALLY married. So let's have a ppd or start new social units!

Good job coming up with all those lame excuses...very impressive.

Missing - are you serious? In the example we're working with no one is missing, they both live in houses with someone other than their spouse. Like what? The movie survivor? Even Helen hunt had Tom hanks declared dead, then she remarried. You can file for divorce If your spouse runs off never to be seen again, even if you don't think they are dead.

Not divorcing "for the children's sake" but living with someone else and calling them your bf/gf - I'm sure the kids won't notice that one. Excellent choice!

Financial reasons, than your probably cheating someone- be it the government or your benefits...we tell ppd ss the same thing. I'm not going give an etiquette pass for fraud.

And please, religious reasons - really??? - I don't know a single religion that says it's better to stay married and live in sin with someone else.

Contesting the divorce? That's paperwork. The desire to divorce has been stated and the intent to do so exists. As I've said 3 times now, they aren't a social unit.

As usual, you have a bunch of excuses strewn in with a shitload of profanity and anger. Look, I can cuss too, does that make my stance more compelling?

Consenting adults can do what ever they want, but I would not knowingly invite the side piece of a married person. If you don't want to be married, or you want to be with someone else, it's pretty simple - get divorced. Or at least tell the court system you want to get divorced. Otherwise you are married.

I side eye anyone who is so flippant about marriage, but maybe that's bc 2 years ago my sister and her wife had to go out of state to get married. But you know, a marriage is just paperwork apparently - so stay married, reap the benefits and live with someone else and call that your social unit, bc it's no big deal, just some legal bullshit that too many take for granted.

Sorry, but "legal marriage" and "social unit" do not mean the same thing regardless of how much you try to make them.

photokitty · December 2015

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

SP29 said:
Exactly Jen and Addie.

People who are not married are significant others in many cases- dating, living together, engaged. And those people can break up the next day and be done with it. My parents have not had any form of a "marriage" for 7 years. They are not on each other's benefits, wills or listed as next of kin. I don't see any form of a PPD here- it's not like they've had any sort of "ceremony" or are pretending to be married to their current SO- they have amicably split themselves and their personal effects and are now in new relationships.

DH's mom still has her married last name, despite being divorced for 25 years. They have NO relationship what-so-ever; they do not talk. Personally, I don't know why she'd keep the name (from my own feelings on the divorce), except that it was probably easier than filing the paperwork for a name change again. Didn't do the legal work to change her name- definitely not a social unit with DH's dad.
Just curious, why are they still married? There must be some reason they haven't bothered to get divorced. Perhaps bc of their tax filings? Bc they would have to file jointly or at least married filing separately. That's why I think it is like a ppd. If it is to reap the benefits of being married I don't see how that's different than the justifications that SS use to justify a ppd. (I had to go on his insurance, he was being deployed, we needed to save more money, etc)

All the other examples include a desire to legally dissolve the social unit. In all the other examples I agree, the social unit is dissolved. I thought I made that clear In my first post. Like a PP said, if you're just waiting for the paperwork to catch up. Filing with the intent of divorcing ends the social unit.

Sorry, but I don't get stating married and then dating and living with someone else. Choosing to stay married either means you are in a social unit or you are pretending to be in one to reap some sort of benefit, be it taxes, healthcare, financial or otherwise. They are "pretending" to be married...well not actually, you fight have to pretend to be married when you are still married.

Not changing your name had nothing to do with being in a social unit. I didn't take my husband's last name...are you suggesting we're not a social unit bc I didn't? She got divorced, it doesn't matter whether she kept the name or not.
Well, people might not divorce for religious reasons, or because the other person is missing, or "for their children's sake," or for financial reasons, or the other person is contesting the divorce, or who the fuck knows why besides the couple?

And for social unit purposes, it's no one else's business why. For all practical purposes, they are no longer a functioning social unit, so it makes no fucking sense to keep treating them as though they are instead of recognizing their current real social situations.
Sounds pretty special snowflake to me....We are legally married, but we don't consider ourselves married, so ya know we're not REALLY married. So let's have a ppd or start new social units!

Good job coming up with all those lame excuses...very impressive.

Missing - are you serious? In the example we're working with no one is missing, they both live in houses with someone other than their spouse. Like what? The movie survivor? Even Helen hunt had Tom hanks declared dead, then she remarried. You can file for divorce If your spouse runs off never to be seen again, even if you don't think they are dead.

Not divorcing "for the children's sake" but living with someone else and calling them your bf/gf - I'm sure the kids won't notice that one. Excellent choice!

Financial reasons, than your probably cheating someone- be it the government or your benefits...we tell ppd ss the same thing. I'm not going give an etiquette pass for fraud.

And please, religious reasons - really??? - I don't know a single religion that says it's better to stay married and live in sin with someone else.

Contesting the divorce? That's paperwork. The desire to divorce has been stated and the intent to do so exists. As I've said 3 times now, they aren't a social unit.

As usual, you have a bunch of excuses strewn in with a shitload of profanity and anger. Look, I can cuss too, does that make my stance more compelling?

Consenting adults can do what ever they want, but I would not knowingly invite the side piece of a married person. If you don't want to be married, or you want to be with someone else, it's pretty simple - get divorced. Or at least tell the court system you want to get divorced. Otherwise you are married.

I side eye anyone who is so flippant about marriage, but maybe that's bc 2 years ago my sister and her wife had to go out of state to get married. But you know, a marriage is just paperwork apparently - so stay married, reap the benefits and live with someone else and call that your social unit, bc it's no big deal, just some legal bullshit that too many take for granted.
Sorry, but "legal marriage" and "social unit" do not mean the same thing regardless of how much you try to make them.

Wow, that almost offered any explanation to back up your opinion.

In my opinion they do mean the same thing, until you express a desire to end the legal marriage, thus ending the social unit. Doesn't matter how many times you say otherwise.

A marriage license is more than a piece of paper. The right to legally define a social unit was only recently granted to all Americans. To me that legal distinction is very important and I find it offensive that others would take it for granted. The words entitled and privileged come to mind.

Jen4948 · December 2015

photokitty said:

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

SP29 said:
Exactly Jen and Addie.

People who are not married are significant others in many cases- dating, living together, engaged. And those people can break up the next day and be done with it. My parents have not had any form of a "marriage" for 7 years. They are not on each other's benefits, wills or listed as next of kin. I don't see any form of a PPD here- it's not like they've had any sort of "ceremony" or are pretending to be married to their current SO- they have amicably split themselves and their personal effects and are now in new relationships.

DH's mom still has her married last name, despite being divorced for 25 years. They have NO relationship what-so-ever; they do not talk. Personally, I don't know why she'd keep the name (from my own feelings on the divorce), except that it was probably easier than filing the paperwork for a name change again. Didn't do the legal work to change her name- definitely not a social unit with DH's dad.
Just curious, why are they still married? There must be some reason they haven't bothered to get divorced. Perhaps bc of their tax filings? Bc they would have to file jointly or at least married filing separately. That's why I think it is like a ppd. If it is to reap the benefits of being married I don't see how that's different than the justifications that SS use to justify a ppd. (I had to go on his insurance, he was being deployed, we needed to save more money, etc)

All the other examples include a desire to legally dissolve the social unit. In all the other examples I agree, the social unit is dissolved. I thought I made that clear In my first post. Like a PP said, if you're just waiting for the paperwork to catch up. Filing with the intent of divorcing ends the social unit.

Sorry, but I don't get stating married and then dating and living with someone else. Choosing to stay married either means you are in a social unit or you are pretending to be in one to reap some sort of benefit, be it taxes, healthcare, financial or otherwise. They are "pretending" to be married...well not actually, you fight have to pretend to be married when you are still married.

Not changing your name had nothing to do with being in a social unit. I didn't take my husband's last name...are you suggesting we're not a social unit bc I didn't? She got divorced, it doesn't matter whether she kept the name or not.
Well, people might not divorce for religious reasons, or because the other person is missing, or "for their children's sake," or for financial reasons, or the other person is contesting the divorce, or who the fuck knows why besides the couple?

And for social unit purposes, it's no one else's business why. For all practical purposes, they are no longer a functioning social unit, so it makes no fucking sense to keep treating them as though they are instead of recognizing their current real social situations.
Sounds pretty special snowflake to me....We are legally married, but we don't consider ourselves married, so ya know we're not REALLY married. So let's have a ppd or start new social units!

Good job coming up with all those lame excuses...very impressive.

Missing - are you serious? In the example we're working with no one is missing, they both live in houses with someone other than their spouse. Like what? The movie survivor? Even Helen hunt had Tom hanks declared dead, then she remarried. You can file for divorce If your spouse runs off never to be seen again, even if you don't think they are dead.

Not divorcing "for the children's sake" but living with someone else and calling them your bf/gf - I'm sure the kids won't notice that one. Excellent choice!

Financial reasons, than your probably cheating someone- be it the government or your benefits...we tell ppd ss the same thing. I'm not going give an etiquette pass for fraud.

And please, religious reasons - really??? - I don't know a single religion that says it's better to stay married and live in sin with someone else.

Contesting the divorce? That's paperwork. The desire to divorce has been stated and the intent to do so exists. As I've said 3 times now, they aren't a social unit.

As usual, you have a bunch of excuses strewn in with a shitload of profanity and anger. Look, I can cuss too, does that make my stance more compelling?

Consenting adults can do what ever they want, but I would not knowingly invite the side piece of a married person. If you don't want to be married, or you want to be with someone else, it's pretty simple - get divorced. Or at least tell the court system you want to get divorced. Otherwise you are married.

I side eye anyone who is so flippant about marriage, but maybe that's bc 2 years ago my sister and her wife had to go out of state to get married. But you know, a marriage is just paperwork apparently - so stay married, reap the benefits and live with someone else and call that your social unit, bc it's no big deal, just some legal bullshit that too many take for granted.
Sorry, but "legal marriage" and "social unit" do not mean the same thing regardless of how much you try to make them.
Wow, that almost offered any explanation to back up your opinion.

In my opinion they do mean the same thing, until you express a desire to end the legal marriage, thus ending the social unit. Doesn't matter how many times you say otherwise.

A marriage license is more than a piece of paper. The right to legally define a social unit was only recently granted to all Americans. To me that legal distinction is very important and I find it offensive that others would take it for granted. The words entitled and privileged come to mind.

Bullshit. If adults consider themselves a social unit for wedding invitation purposes, that means they have to be invited together. Period. If you hold that hosts cannot judge the relationships of others when determining who does or doesn't constitute a social unit, then it is hypocritical of you to make any judgments, period. You are not entitled to see a copy of someone's divorce papers in connection with determining who is or isn't a social unit.

And if you judge, you'll be judged in return. I think that's one of the lessons of this time of year.

CMGragain · December 2015

The MOH at daughter's wedding asked to bring a date. We said "Of course!" What is one extra person? They had just met, and he was married at the time, though I didn't know that.
I'm glad we invited him. Almost five years later, and they are still together. No plans to marry because they are happy as they are. Glad I didn't judge.

photokitty · December 2015

New example. So you'd let uncle Bob bring his mistress to the wedding if aunt Susan can't come. Uncle Bob and Jane go on dates and consider themself a social unit after all. Since being married to someone, and having no desire to end the social unit has any barring on anything? Let adults define their own social units and all...

I fully agree with Addie, CMG, and everyone before SP29, all of those people wanted to end their marriage. I like you SP29, but I think there is more to the story. I think your parents get something out of staying married, and by doing so it's fraud. If they don't, then I find it extremely lazy and think it mocks marriage.

On my inviting someone - Personally, I would not associate with someone who would stay married to one person, for years, and live with another. It just wouldn't sit right with me, neither would someone with a mistress. I guess when it's family, we all deal with our own range of normal.

Jen just likes to argue with me. That's fine. It actually amuses the hell out of me. If I said the world was round, I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest when Jen insisted it was flat.

I argued that if you were friends with a polygamous trio, then you had to invite all three. I'm very accepting and let adults define their own units. However, I believe marriage defines a unit and if you have no desire to end the marriage, then that's your primary social unit. I not let Uncle Bob bring his mistress. And I wouldn't be friends with Jane, bc I would not associate closely with someone who thought being a mistress was acceptable - so her definition of her social unit wouldn't matter either.

charlotte989875 · December 2015

So my aunt (technically mothers aunt), very religious very old school, was/is married to this awful, abusive (physically and emotionally) man. He left the state after the children were grown, took he family's money and bailed. She initially tried to get an annulment, but he refused everything. She had no money and honestly I think she really believed she could not, in the eyes of god, get a divorce. So they never did.

Now she never dated again, so this story isn't the same thing. But they never legally divorced. She certainly doesn't get anything out of staying married. And for our wedding we invited her (with a plus one) and not him. I guess my points is that it's hard to judge these things sometimes. Yes I have a hard time understanding why my aunt never divorced him, but because she sees them as not a social unit there was no way I was inviting him.

JediElizabeth · December 2015

photokitty said:
So you'd let uncle Bob bring his mistress to the wedding if aunt Susan can't come. Uncle Bob and Jane go on dates and consider themself a social unit after all. Since being married to someone, and having no desire to end the social unit has any barring on anything? Let adults define their own social units and all...

I fully agree with Addie, CMG, and everyone before SP29, all of those people wanted to end their marriage. I like you SP29, but I think there is more to the story. I think your parents get something out of staying married, and by doing so it's fraud. If they don't, then I find it extremely lazy and think it mocks marriage.

On my inviting someone - Personally, I would not associate with someone who would stay married to one person, for years, and live with another. It just wouldn't sit right with me, neither would someone with a mistress. I guess when it's family, we all deal with our own range of normal.

Jen just likes to argue with me. That's fine. It actually amuses the hell out of me. If I said the world was round, I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest when Jen insisted it was flat.

I argued that if you were friends with a polygamous trio, then you had to invite all three. I'm very accepting and let adults define their own units. However, I believe marriage defines a unit and if you have no desire to end the marriage, then that's your primary social unit. I not let Uncle Bob bring his mistress. And I wouldn't be friends with Jane, bc I would not associate closely with someone who thought being a mistress was acceptable - so her definition of her social unit wouldn't matter either.

I think that's ridiculous. There are plenty of reasons to not get divorced which are not fraudulent.

- Divorces are expensive. When you're struggling to feed your family, a divorce may not be a prortity. (I had plenty of friends parents in this position in high school.)

- Kids can go through hell because of a divorce. I think my parents would have divorced after my sister and I were out of school if both were alive by then, but neither one wanted to put us through that as children.

- Depending on the state/country and the law, it may be hard for one party to be granted a divorce by the other. I'm not sure about present law, but I remember this being an issue years ago.

I'd be hard pressed to call any of those fraud, and those are just the ones I know from personal friend/family experience.

I'd also leave it to the couples to define their own relationship, because it's none of my business if any of these are the case. What would you do? Call up Uncle Bob and see if he's still married to Aunt Susan because she won't sign the papers, or because he wants to keep getting a tax break, then make the call about whether to invite his estranged wife or the girlfriend he lives with based on that? Ask about their financials - maybe offer to pay for the divorce as a gift? Sorry for the lack of sarcasm font on my phone, but there's really no way to know.

For the record, I also don't think the girlfriend (Jane, here) should be called a mistress in this case. If the marriage is functionally over, and the girlfriend is known about, and that relationship started after Bob & Susan decided not to be together anymore (he's not lying/cheating), it puts an unfair title on someone who is doing nothing wrong.

Jen4948 · December 2015

photokitty said:

Jen just likes to argue with me. That's fine. It actually amuses the hell out of me. If I said the world was round, I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest when Jen insisted it was flat.

More bullshit. Not only do I agree with you on other points of etiquette and planning, but I'm not the only one here who doesn't agree with you, yet you're singling me out.

photokitty · December 2015

I still disagree, but I appreciate others viewpoints. Since I'm married, I don't see it being an issue (but then I did get divorced and had to go through the hell of getting a Catholic annulment, so I understand everything that goes into that decision) as I'm not planning to issueeffing invitations again and I don't know anyone who stayed married, but started a new relationship. I'm not going to refute the new examples. Life is to short to be married to someone who doesn't make you happy, at least that was the case for me. I'm going to just agree to disagree and move on.

I'm going to spending time with family today and focus on them. I hope everyone has a great day and enjoys the company they choose to be with, whomever that may be.

AddieCake · December 2015

Sharing some personal info here and don't really care who judges it; I know I sure did growing up.

My dad has been married 6 times, twice to my mother. His current wife is the one who wore the ivory dress to my wedding that I reference to tell SS to get over what people wear. While I have liked all my dad's wives, only one of them do I consider my stepmom because she was there when I was growing up.

My parents split up when I was like 5, and my dad remarried. He was married to my stepmom (who I adore) for 20 years. Over the course of those 20 years, however, they split up and my dad and real mom got back together. Then they split up again, and Dad went back to stepmom. Repeatedly. This went on for many years. It was a joke among my friends and I that we didn't know each year who would be at my birthday party: mom or stepmom.

Serious question: Dad remained married to stepmom for that whole 20 years, even though he sometimes lived with or was with my mom. How would you guys have handled an invitation to my Dad? Would you invite him with whichever between mom and stepmom he was with at the time, or would you insist on inviting him with my stepmom because they were married?

SO RSVP without invitation

Re: SO RSVP without invitation

Choose Another Board

Search Boards