Author Topic: was he correct?  (Read 3895 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PennyandPleased

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: was he correct?
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2014, 11:33:25 AM »
I'm in a snarky mood so you've all been warned...

But who the heck cares about proceeding OUT of the church?!?!? (and I mean that in regards to the offended MOB, not the OP) After the ceremony is over I've never been like "OH MY GOSH let me get my camera so I can get a picture of the parents of the bride and groom walking out!" After the bride and groom walk out everyone else is now thinking "OPEN BARRRR!"

And also - the fact that the mother of the BRIDE was possibly offended, to me, means that 1) she does not understand what it's like for the Groom's father to be in that situation and need assistance communicating and she was mad someone went before her.

 >:D

ETA - your husband was totally fine. If he waited for everyone in the bridal party to proceed out he could have been caught in the crowd and then it could have taken a long time to find the groom's father and could have created a frustrating situation for all.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 11:40:39 AM by PennyandPleased »

Allyson

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1978
Re: was he correct?
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2014, 01:28:43 PM »
Your husband behaved correctly. The mother of the bride may be unfamiliar with protocol for interpreters etc. and not understood, and it might be a kindness at some point for someone to let her know (interpreter is extension of person interpreting for, address the person you want to talk to, etc) especially if she's likely to be in this situation frequently (say if the families socialize together.) if not, oh well, sometimes people are annoyed. If she mentions being annoyed, maybe someone will tell her why it happened.

Mikayla

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4049
Re: was he correct?
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2014, 05:54:27 PM »
Was there a rehearsal dinner?  It sounds to me like he did fine and probably what most would have done.  If the MOG had strong feelings about making sure the exit plan was done to her satisfaction, the time to address this, or even just react, isn't *after* the ceremony is over. 

Yankeegal77

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
Re: was he correct?
« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2014, 07:18:26 PM »
I believe that the root of rudeness in cases like this is intent. And your husband's actions were not only rooted in the best intentions, but they made sense! The white cane/seeing eye dog was an excellent analogy.

At worst, this is a minor, unintentional faux pas and if the MOB really was offended, then she is overreacting. Like another poster said, if this were important, then the POG should have mentioned it.

I think he was fine. Yes, the MOG could have interpreted for a few minutes, but that's what your husband was there for. ;)

He was 100% fine.

lollylegs

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 596
Re: was he correct?
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2014, 07:23:50 PM »
Yeah, I would imagine that someone acting in an assistant capacity like that would be like a shadow, sticking close to the person they're assisting the whole time. To pick up a previous analogy, it's like how a seeing eye dog isn't a pet and is allowed places where pets aren't; your husband wasn't a guest, he was basically an extension of FOG.

In a perfect world your husband could have said to the parents of the groom beforehand, "There may be times during the wedding when FOG has to go places and do things where my presence won't be appropriate, in that case, if MOG is there I'll hang back," but honestly, who could forsee something like that?

TL;DR - your husband was fine.

Onyx_TKD

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1363
Re: was he correct?
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2014, 07:32:45 PM »
Yeah, I would imagine that someone acting in an assistant capacity like that would be like a shadow, sticking close to the person they're assisting the whole time. To pick up a previous analogy, it's like how a seeing eye dog isn't a pet and is allowed places where pets aren't; your husband wasn't a guest, he was basically an extension of FOG.

In a perfect world your husband could have said to the parents of the groom beforehand, "There may be times during the wedding when FOG has to go places and do things where my presence won't be appropriate, in that case, if MOG is there I'll hang back," but honestly, who could forsee something like that?

TL;DR - your husband was fine.

My "perfect world" version would be more like:
"There may be times during the wedding when FOG has to go places and do things that would normally be for family only. In that case, do you want me to accompany him or should I hang back if MOG is there?"

It really should be the FOG's decision (with some input from MOG) whether he wants his hired interpreter by his side at all times (like a white cane or a service dog), or whether he'd like temporarily forgo his services for a more typical appearance or to maintain a "family-only" time.

lollylegs

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 596
Re: was he correct?
« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2014, 07:36:01 PM »
Yeah, I would imagine that someone acting in an assistant capacity like that would be like a shadow, sticking close to the person they're assisting the whole time. To pick up a previous analogy, it's like how a seeing eye dog isn't a pet and is allowed places where pets aren't; your husband wasn't a guest, he was basically an extension of FOG.

In a perfect world your husband could have said to the parents of the groom beforehand, "There may be times during the wedding when FOG has to go places and do things where my presence won't be appropriate, in that case, if MOG is there I'll hang back," but honestly, who could forsee something like that?

TL;DR - your husband was fine.

My "perfect world" version would be more like:
"There may be times during the wedding when FOG has to go places and do things that would normally be for family only. In that case, do you want me to accompany him or should I hang back if MOG is there?"

It really should be the FOG's decision (with some input from MOG) whether he wants his hired interpreter by his side at all times (like a white cane or a service dog), or whether he'd like temporarily forgo his services for a more typical appearance or to maintain a "family-only" time.

Yes, you're absolutely right.

jackie jormp jomp

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: was he correct?
« Reply #22 on: February 03, 2014, 10:28:51 PM »
My husband interpreted for a deaf Father of the Groom at a wedding yesterday. When the families proceeded out of the church after the ceremony, the groom's parents went first , then the bride's parents. My husband followed after the FOTG, thinking it was his job to remain close to him so that he could communicate with guests at all times, but now he thinks the bride's mother may have been offended that he did not wait until after they had proceeded out. What do you all think?
His intent was good, and the moment happened quickly.  Also--it is such a small thing... the type of person to be offended without taking all this into consideration would have to be the type who loves being offended--there is no winning with those.
If it ever does come up, he can shrug it off, and say he hadn't been briefed and just defaulted to what an interpreter would typically do in other situations. Don't let him feel bad.