Multiple weddings, same couple = rudeness? (same-sex couples)

[RebeccainGA]

So the delay for the SCOTUS decision has me daydreaming, and I thought I'd ask folks - for couples that (like me and DP) have both had a wedding, albeit a small one, and have been together for a while, is it rude to have another wedding once it's legal? Is a BWW out of the question? It's not a gift grabby thing, especially since we got a grand total of ten gifts, all thoughtful but not expensive, at our first and wouldn't expect anything different now. I just kind of want to have a celebration, once it's legal!

[Pen^2]

Go for it!

This isn't the same as other weddings or even a vow renewal. You are finally getting legal recognition and able to be officially married, and that's a pretty huge deal. Make it clear on your invites what your purpose is (e.g. it's legal and you want to celebrate) and that you are not expecting gifts. Speak to people in person also if need be, but it's not a huge deal if some people choose to give you stuff anyway.

Congratulations, by the way! Not on being married (although that's cool too), but on being recognised at last! Woo hoo!

[Jones]

I would say, not a problem; I'd call it a legal vow renewal, or something like that, and make it clear that now the government was going to recognize it you wanted to make it a PARTY.

I personally would shoot for a day that means something to you, like the anniversary of your first vow exchange or anniversary of the day you met, or something. But that's just me. 

[EllenS]

If you're going to go all Miss Mannersy, her definition of a "wedding" in her Guide to Weddings, is "a solemn ceremony that legally marries a couple, followed by a celebration in a somewhat more formal style than the one in which they normally entertain"

So by her definition, you are perfectly eligible for your legal wedding.

[lowspark]

I think that the legalization of same-sex marriage has created a unique situation and I'm sure there are a lot of couples, like you, who have already held a marriage ceremony and consider themselves married but who will now want to make it legal now that the laws are changing.

To me, that's a whole different ceremony, and definitely something to be celebrated with family and friends if that's your wish. I would be delighted to be invited to the legal ceremony, whether or not I'd been invited to the first wedding. And I can't imagine seeing it as a gift grab (although I'd probably bring a gift unless the couple specifically said "no gifts").

I say go for it!

[ladyknight1]

Well, DH and I are looking forward to having a vow renewal/anniversary party every year once we buy a house, not to receive gifts, but to have good food and company with those we see far too seldom.

Go for it Rebecca!

[RebeccainGA]

Thanks, guys. While I'd sort of hoped that we could do it this year on our conference trip (gee, wouldn't it be nice?), even if SCOTUS rules the way we hope, it may be a while before things calm down and we can actually do the thing, but I'd hate to plan it if it was going to look rude.

I sure hope we can, though. :-)

[Outdoor Girl]

Something like, 'Join us as we make it legal!' is totally fine.  And if I was one of the original gifters at your non-legal wedding, I would still be inclined to give you something in congratulations for being able to now marry legally.

[nuit93]

Sounds perfectly fine to me!  I wouldn't see it as gift-grabby.  I know at least one couple in RL that is planning the same thing for next year here in WA state.

[Oh Joy]

I'm going to speak very candidly, and share that I see this as a difficult question to answer.  Where we often have rousing discussions of the 'one wedding per couple limit' on this forum, I feel that answers for or against the additional celebration might be misconstrued as opinions for or against same sex marriage, KWIM?

[nuit93]

I'm going to speak very candidly, and share that I see this as a difficult question to answer.  Where we often have rousing discussions of the 'one wedding per couple limit' on this forum, I feel that answers for or against the additional celebration might be misconstrued as opinions for or against same sex marriage, KWIM?

I see where you're coming from, however I think this is a unique situation that etiquette has to catch up on simply because it is not a situation that could have been conceived of a few decades ago.

Typically, when we talk about "one wedding per couple", the reasons for a couple having more than one ceremony are not because they COULDN'T have a legal ceremony for one of them, but because they CHOSE not to. 

In this case, there was no possible way to have a ceremony that was legally recognized, however the HC agreed that that shouldn't deter them from having a ceremony that celebrated their love and commitment for each other.  Depending on when that ceremony was, it's entirely conceivable that they didn't think legal recognition would happen in their lifetime.  Now that it could be possible, I don't see any reason not to celebrate the legal bond as well. 

And yes, for many couples it is also a celebration that they now have the legal rights previously denied them.  Again, not something that traditional etiquette was prepared to address but I think modern etiquette can make allowances for it.

[LifeOnPluto]

I think in this case, you're fine in having a second, legal, wedding.

If you had had a BBW the first time, I might have added the caveat that you should probably make it clear to guests that gifts aren't expected this time around.

[Tea Drinker]

Go for it. I don't think most people will consider it gift-grabby (especially given that you didn't get a huge pile of gifts the first time).

You may even find that some people take your marriage more seriously if they see you get legally married. Two women I know said that some of their relatives took them more seriously as a couple because they're legally married--even when they were living in Illinois, which didn't recognize the marriage (they got married in Massachusetts right after they finished college there, which was also right after the Commonwealth started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples).

[VorFemme]

Perhaps we could take a cue from countries where the legal (government) and religious (church, mosque, temple, whatever) weddings are not connected in any way.  The government ONLY requires a legal wedding for a couple to have the rights & privileges of being married under the law.

Their church may or may not suggest, request, or require a religious ceremony in addition to the legal one for the marriage to be recognized as one under the laws & customs of the church...

In those countries - the weddings may or may not be close in time - depending on any number of events - what is done in those circumstances?

[Sharnita]

I think of a different example where one member of the couple is being deployed so they wed quickly and then want to have the "real" wedding after the deployment is over.  Some posters tend to say "extraordinary circumstances, allow a loophole in the one wedding rule".  Others hold a hard line and insist that the couple could have waited or need to learn to be happy with what they had.  I imagine that in most cases, teh same people will give the same answers for the same reasons in this case.