Author Topic: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.  (Read 11684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rigs32

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 523
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #75 on: April 11, 2014, 11:31:03 AM »
Overall - I figure that you can't have it both ways.  IMO you can't figure that you're "married enough" to share health insurance, satisfy immigration issues etc. but "not married enough" because there wasn't a BWW.  Either you were married, or you weren't.  And like some PPs, I am fine with having a big celebration some time after the legal papers, but it shouldn't be misrepresented as the initial ceremony.

This is where I fall, too.  Some say they want the BWW because it's what the dreamed of, want to celebrate with family, etc.  So, can I have a BWW and never do the legal part so that I can have a party, a white dress, and get all the gifts?  It'll make things so much easier if SO and I break up since there'll be no need for a divorce.

Ginger G

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 358
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #76 on: April 11, 2014, 12:40:42 PM »
I got married last August for a similar reason - my husband was having health problems and needed to get on my insurance as soon as possible.  Our original plan was to get married this year in a small ceremony, but we ended up doing it last year with just the two of us at a courthouse.  Personally, I would feel ridiculous at this point having a ceremony.  We considered having a reception a month or two after the wedding, but didn't get around it and I feel it's too late for that now too although some people keep telling us we "need" to do it.  I'm nor sure why we need to, I feel just as much married as anybody else.

TriCrazy73

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #77 on: April 11, 2014, 03:40:36 PM »
I got married last August for a similar reason - my husband was having health problems and needed to get on my insurance as soon as possible.  Our original plan was to get married this year in a small ceremony, but we ended up doing it last year with just the two of us at a courthouse.  Personally, I would feel ridiculous at this point having a ceremony.  We considered having a reception a month or two after the wedding, but didn't get around it and I feel it's too late for that now too although some people keep telling us we "need" to do it.  I'm nor sure why we need to, I feel just as much married as anybody else.
Probably because everyone love a fun wedding reception!  It is a great reason to get together with loved ones and celebrate your marriage and party!  ;)

EllenS

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1368
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #78 on: April 11, 2014, 09:03:09 PM »

So if a couple has been committed to each other and living together but no wedding of any form has taken place, then they get married (legally or not), nothing has really changed in their lives. Is it wrong to have a big celebration then?

What if a couple does the paperwork but doesn't start living together until after a traditional ceremony? Is the life-change in their relationship or the life-change in their insurance benefits and such the one worth celebrating?

Are they secretly living together? As in, they invited a whole bunch of people to their wedding - who don't know where they live?
 If you don't get why that is wierd, I wouldn't even know how to start explaining it.

No secrets.

In one case a couple isn't living together until after thier traditional ceremony, regardless of when paperwork happens.

In the other case, a couple is living together well before any of that takes place.



I knew that all of us would never come to an agreement on the definition of marriage (and there's no need to). I see now that we cannot even reach a mutual understanding that those different definitions exist, or should even be tolerated.

I guess that's just how it goes sometimes!

I really don't see this as having anything to do with anybody's definition of marriage.
It has to do with defining the relationship between the HC and the invitees.

A wedding invitation means "hey, I care about you, value your support and consider you an important person in my life."
If that's true, wouldn't such a person already know your personal definition of marriage?  Wouldn't they know your religious beliefs about being married in the eyes of Deity vs. the eyes of the government? Wouldn't they know if you had some kind of major life-threatening health scare that meant you needed health insurance right away?  Wouldn't they know that the family/friend affirmation means more to you than the legal rights?

If not, why invite such a person to the wedding?  Obviously there is no meaningful connection.
The "deceit" is not in the use of the word wedding - it's in making people think they are very close and dear to the HC, when in reality they are not.

CakeEater

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2748
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #79 on: April 12, 2014, 03:57:18 AM »

So if a couple has been committed to each other and living together but no wedding of any form has taken place, then they get married (legally or not), nothing has really changed in their lives. Is it wrong to have a big celebration then?

What if a couple does the paperwork but doesn't start living together until after a traditional ceremony? Is the life-change in their relationship or the life-change in their insurance benefits and such the one worth celebrating?

Are they secretly living together? As in, they invited a whole bunch of people to their wedding - who don't know where they live?
 If you don't get why that is wierd, I wouldn't even know how to start explaining it.

No secrets.

In one case a couple isn't living together until after thier traditional ceremony, regardless of when paperwork happens.

In the other case, a couple is living together well before any of that takes place.



I knew that all of us would never come to an agreement on the definition of marriage (and there's no need to). I see now that we cannot even reach a mutual understanding that those different definitions exist, or should even be tolerated.

I guess that's just how it goes sometimes!

I really don't see this as having anything to do with anybody's definition of marriage.
It has to do with defining the relationship between the HC and the invitees.

A wedding invitation means "hey, I care about you, value your support and consider you an important person in my life."
If that's true, wouldn't such a person already know your personal definition of marriage?  Wouldn't they know your religious beliefs about being married in the eyes of Deity vs. the eyes of the government? Wouldn't they know if you had some kind of major life-threatening health scare that meant you needed health insurance right away?  Wouldn't they know that the family/friend affirmation means more to you than the legal rights?

If not, why invite such a person to the wedding?  Obviously there is no meaningful connection.
The "deceit" is not in the use of the word wedding - it's in making people think they are very close and dear to the HC, when in reality they are not.

I've agreed with you EllenS, up til now. I go to plenty of weddings and invited people to mine who wouldn't have had the faintest clue about my thoughts on marriage, or my need or otherwise for health insurance. Many people invite guests o their weddings who are friends of ttheir parents, distant cousins etc, for lots of valid reasons that don't necessarily mean that they'd be aware of the specific circumstances of the couple's relationship.

And therein lies the problem, I think. Guests should be aware of what they're being invited to. All the guests - not just those in the inner circle who already know what the relationship entails.

EllenS

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1368
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #80 on: April 12, 2014, 09:19:13 AM »
Guests should be aware of what they're being invited to.

Yes, absolutely. What I'm saying is, if everybody is already on the same page then the words don't matter. I've been to gigantic 600+ people weddings where the civil ceremony happened months earlier but they believed the religious ceremony was the one that "counted." That's fine, because 90% of the guests were the same religion and had the same belief, and the rest of us were well aware of that belief system. They didn't put it on the invitation, but it wasn't a secret. Being part of a religion like that is a major part of life. The only way someone wouldn't know about it is if they never had a conversation of more than 5 minutes with the HC or any member of their family.

If you're inviting people who don't know what you're really doing, then it needs to be expressed.

I just don't understand why someone would have an attitude that they don't care if their guests know what they're seeing. People who have no connection to you at all, to the point they wouldn't know where you live, what religion you practice  or whether you almost died last year? That seems like putting on a show and selling tickets to strangers, not inviting family and friends to a significant personal life event.

Redneck Gravy

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #81 on: April 14, 2014, 10:01:26 AM »
Guests should be aware of what they're being invited to.

Yes, absolutely. What I'm saying is, if everybody is already on the same page then the words don't matter. I've been to gigantic 600+ people weddings where the civil ceremony happened months earlier but they believed the religious ceremony was the one that "counted." That's fine, because 90% of the guests were the same religion and had the same belief, and the rest of us were well aware of that belief system. They didn't put it on the invitation, but it wasn't a secret. Being part of a religion like that is a major part of life. The only way someone wouldn't know about it is if they never had a conversation of more than 5 minutes with the HC or any member of their family.

If you're inviting people who don't know what you're really doing, then it needs to be expressed.

I just don't understand why someone would have an attitude that they don't care if their guests know what they're seeing. People who have no connection to you at all, to the point they wouldn't know where you live, what religion you practice  or whether you almost died last year? That seems like putting on a show and selling tickets to strangers, not inviting family and friends to a significant personal life event.

Yes, this comes across as the gimme grab!

TurtleDove

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6110
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #82 on: April 14, 2014, 10:08:02 AM »
As a person with a binary (yes/no) concept of marriage myself. I get wanting to celebrate, and that's awesome. Celebrations are awesome. Call the celebration whatever you want, wear what you want, use whatever wording you want on the invite, but if I'm supposed to be close with somebody,  I want to know what's actually going on in their life. Like, their real life. It's hurtful to find out someone considers you merely an audience.

Secrets are wierd. If nobody's keeping secrets, then hey, that's not wierd.

But, my understanding of what "married" is, is like (if you'll pardon the associations) "pregnant" or "dead." Once you're married, you can't be "more" married. To me, that's kind of the point of the thing.  Either your life has changed, or it hasnt. And if we're not close enough for me to know when your life changes, then we're not close enough for you to invite me to your wedding.

So if a couple has been committed to each other and living together but no wedding of any form has taken place, then they get married (legally or not), nothing has really changed in their lives. Is it wrong to have a big celebration then?

What if a couple does the paperwork but doesn't start living together until after a traditional ceremony? Is the life-change in their relationship or the life-change in their insurance benefits and such the one worth celebrating?

I think people can celebrate whatever they want to celebrate.  But if a couple is married, they are married.  To then "get married" six months (or whatever) after they are already married makes no sense to me - what were you for the past six months of your marriage then? Not married?  What?  I say celebrate the marriage whenever and however you want to, but don't say you are "getting married" six months after you got married.

Tea Drinker

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1401
  • Now part of Team Land Crab
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #83 on: April 14, 2014, 12:21:54 PM »
Guests should be aware of what they're being invited to.

Yes, absolutely. What I'm saying is, if everybody is already on the same page then the words don't matter. I've been to gigantic 600+ people weddings where the civil ceremony happened months earlier but they believed the religious ceremony was the one that "counted." That's fine, because 90% of the guests were the same religion and had the same belief, and the rest of us were well aware of that belief system. They didn't put it on the invitation, but it wasn't a secret. Being part of a religion like that is a major part of life. The only way someone wouldn't know about it is if they never had a conversation of more than 5 minutes with the HC or any member of their family.

If you're inviting people who don't know what you're really doing, then it needs to be expressed.

I just don't understand why someone would have an attitude that they don't care if their guests know what they're seeing. People who have no connection to you at all, to the point they wouldn't know where you live, what religion you practice  or whether you almost died last year? That seems like putting on a show and selling tickets to strangers, not inviting family and friends to a significant personal life event.

I think the question is, Who is doing the inviting? We've had plenty of posts here, and seen stories elsewhere, about people whose parents or soon-to-be-in-laws wanted to invite cousins they barely knew, or parents' neighbors who the happy couple had never met, or the bride or groom's father's business associates. Someone like that may know whether the bride or groom's parents nearly died last year, where they live, and what religion they practice (though business associates might not know the last). They're less likely to know where the about-to-be-son-in-law of the person who wants to invite them lives, or if the people getting married practice a religion different from that of the parents.

Some people who are getting married are content to let their parents invite such people as long as they're paying for the wedding; others, as we've seen here, have gotten worn down enough by the arguments to give in even though they really just want the relatives they know and love, and their own close friends.
Any advice that requires the use of a time machine may safely be ignored.

Wintergreen

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #84 on: April 15, 2014, 09:54:06 AM »
I think for me I struggle to understand the following situation.  Amy and Sue are legally married on January 15.  They have a BWW July 15 and say that is when they got married.  What were they for the previous six months?

You'd probably have to ask them.   Is it important that they have a clear label?  Sometimes we just don't have a good word for a situation but that doesn't invalidate the situation in some way.

Quote
Again, I will happily celebrate the BWW with them....but I will consider it strange that they are calling it a wedding when they have already been married for six months.

I don't consider it strange at all.    It's just an evolving state.   The reasons to get/not get a piece of paper are often legal or financial.   The reasons to have a wedding are often social.

So as an example.  Our HC is living together, happy together, planing a future together, but for one reason or another haven't gotten around to getting married yet.

Then a test result comes back and it's a bad one.  Out of the blue, everything changes, priorities shift, lives are never the same.

So the HC realizes that if they are legally wed, soon, then they can solve a lot of problems and potentially save a life.  Easy decision.

But what about a 'wedding'?   Maybe they just don't get one? Maybe the rush something together in a few days?

Pros: Traditional etiquette is satisfied.

Cons: Parents, siblings, friends and family are saddened and disappointed to miss out on an event that they may have been happily anticipating. 

When I line it up like that - for me it's an easy decision.  Get the license and legal stuff done, have a Wedding later with the friends and family who love you and want to support you.  I'd rather have Emily Post wag her finger at me than deal with my Father's heartache that he'll never walk me down the aisle.

First a disclaimer. Should what you say happen for my friends, following would not be the stuff in my head. Following is meant as part of "rationalized" discussion about the topic.

But, how I see it, that slightly goes under the "though luck"-category. Maybe it is because for me marriage is a financial agreement firstly. It does have also plenty emotional value for me (and I recognize it does have spiritual value for others too, but about that I'm not fit to discuss here), but love does not need papers, nor it needs public recognition. If it would only be about love, marriage would not be needed at all. But historically, and mainly for today too, marriage is about finances. It is a decision between two people who at that moment will promise to each other to take responsibility of each other, to support each other and to act as a unit, financial unit. If you decided not to marry, you just take the legal and financial risk involved with not marrying. If you are living happily together and planning future, this should be, at that point, a conscious decision. And when situation suddenly changes, you reap the result of your conscious decision. This might mean that you don't get the happy social side effects of getting married.

I don't condemn in anyway living together without being married (I do it myself too) or feel that everybody should get married. I just say, that adult in relationship should know the benefits and risks of marrying/not marrying. There really should be the thought and discussion about "hey, you are not in my health insurance/are not considered my near relative and thus cannot decide about my medical treatment should something happen/won't be able to live in our apartment if I die in accident because we are not married, is this reason big enough that we marry as soon as legally possible or do we risk it and marry with nice big do later on with good time?". Because there are no right answers for these. You might be in a relationship where you'd rather that your parents or siblings will make the decisions about your medical treatment. It's just... a person old enough to marry should know these things and make decisions based on that.

But as I said, should someone near find themselves in such situation, I would not think of this. And I'd happily attend a celebration about their marriage, even if they got legally married long time before. But I'd like to know about it.

Also, I don't remember who talked about words changing. But it's slightly different about marriage than word "literally" when used in general discussion. You could use a word "murder" as an example. Yes, both can be used in casual discussion anyway person talking wants, and it can be assigned different meanings too. But they both do also have "clear" legal definition, and I don't run around claiming my grandpa was murdered when he died of old age, even if the result is same. That is because it might cause terrible misunderstandings when people would assume I'm using the publicly known, clearly defined legal meaning of the word.

CakeEater

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2748
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #85 on: April 16, 2014, 01:54:49 AM »
I think for me I struggle to understand the following situation.  Amy and Sue are legally married on January 15.  They have a BWW July 15 and say that is when they got married.  What were they for the previous six months?

You'd probably have to ask them.   Is it important that they have a clear label?  Sometimes we just don't have a good word for a situation but that doesn't invalidate the situation in some way.

Quote
Again, I will happily celebrate the BWW with them....but I will consider it strange that they are calling it a wedding when they have already been married for six months.

I don't consider it strange at all.    It's just an evolving state.   The reasons to get/not get a piece of paper are often legal or financial.   The reasons to have a wedding are often social.

So as an example.  Our HC is living together, happy together, planing a future together, but for one reason or another haven't gotten around to getting married yet.

Then a test result comes back and it's a bad one.  Out of the blue, everything changes, priorities shift, lives are never the same.

So the HC realizes that if they are legally wed, soon, then they can solve a lot of problems and potentially save a life.  Easy decision.

But what about a 'wedding'?   Maybe they just don't get one? Maybe the rush something together in a few days?

Pros: Traditional etiquette is satisfied.

Cons: Parents, siblings, friends and family are saddened and disappointed to miss out on an event that they may have been happily anticipating. 

When I line it up like that - for me it's an easy decision.  Get the license and legal stuff done, have a Wedding later with the friends and family who love you and want to support you.  I'd rather have Emily Post wag her finger at me than deal with my Father's heartache that he'll never walk me down the aisle.

First a disclaimer. Should what you say happen for my friends, following would not be the stuff in my head. Following is meant as part of "rationalized" discussion about the topic.

But, how I see it, that slightly goes under the "though luck"-category. Maybe it is because for me marriage is a financial agreement firstly. It does have also plenty emotional value for me (and I recognize it does have spiritual value for others too, but about that I'm not fit to discuss here), but love does not need papers, nor it needs public recognition. If it would only be about love, marriage would not be needed at all. But historically, and mainly for today too, marriage is about finances. It is a decision between two people who at that moment will promise to each other to take responsibility of each other, to support each other and to act as a unit, financial unit. If you decided not to marry, you just take the legal and financial risk involved with not marrying. If you are living happily together and planning future, this should be, at that point, a conscious decision. And when situation suddenly changes, you reap the result of your conscious decision. This might mean that you don't get the happy social side effects of getting married.

I don't condemn in anyway living together without being married (I do it myself too) or feel that everybody should get married. I just say, that adult in relationship should know the benefits and risks of marrying/not marrying. There really should be the thought and discussion about "hey, you are not in my health insurance/are not considered my near relative and thus cannot decide about my medical treatment should something happen/won't be able to live in our apartment if I die in accident because we are not married, is this reason big enough that we marry as soon as legally possible or do we risk it and marry with nice big do later on with good time?". Because there are no right answers for these. You might be in a relationship where you'd rather that your parents or siblings will make the decisions about your medical treatment. It's just... a person old enough to marry should know these things and make decisions based on that.

But as I said, should someone near find themselves in such situation, I would not think of this. And I'd happily attend a celebration about their marriage, even if they got legally married long time before. But I'd like to know about it.

Also, I don't remember who talked about words changing. But it's slightly different about marriage than word "literally" when used in general discussion. You could use a word "murder" as an example. Yes, both can be used in casual discussion anyway person talking wants, and it can be assigned different meanings too. But they both do also have "clear" legal definition, and I don't run around claiming my grandpa was murdered when he died of old age, even if the result is same. That is because it might cause terrible misunderstandings when people would assume I'm using the publicly known, clearly defined legal meaning of the word.

Great post! I agree.

nuit93

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1161
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #86 on: April 16, 2014, 12:35:44 PM »
Guests should be aware of what they're being invited to.

Yes, absolutely. What I'm saying is, if everybody is already on the same page then the words don't matter. I've been to gigantic 600+ people weddings where the civil ceremony happened months earlier but they believed the religious ceremony was the one that "counted." That's fine, because 90% of the guests were the same religion and had the same belief, and the rest of us were well aware of that belief system. They didn't put it on the invitation, but it wasn't a secret. Being part of a religion like that is a major part of life. The only way someone wouldn't know about it is if they never had a conversation of more than 5 minutes with the HC or any member of their family.

If you're inviting people who don't know what you're really doing, then it needs to be expressed.

I just don't understand why someone would have an attitude that they don't care if their guests know what they're seeing. People who have no connection to you at all, to the point they wouldn't know where you live, what religion you practice  or whether you almost died last year? That seems like putting on a show and selling tickets to strangers, not inviting family and friends to a significant personal life event.

Yes, but how many of us have had to deal with (or heard stories of) the parents/in-laws of the HC insisting that every distant cousin/friend of the family receive an invitation, regardless of the HC's own connection or feeling toward said distant people?

mj

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 574
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #87 on: April 17, 2014, 12:04:58 PM »
This has happened recently in my family and I found I have rather strong views on it personally.  We were invited to a family members religious wedding 2 years after their legal ceremony.  Both DH & I were confused.  They share a last name, refer to each other as husband & wife, live together, share their married benefits and really, behave as a married couple in every sense of the word.  So that was the first thing that sprung to mind for me, we have already acknowledged the marriage by sending gifts and congratulations.  We were not invited to the first ceremony so witnessing then was not an option.

So two years later receiving this invite coupled with all the big white wedding traditions (showers, registries) has all left a bad taste in our mouths.  There are several of us in the family who are very confused, asked each other what was up - should we send gifts?  Go?  What do we do?  I get that now is their religious ceremony, but I have to think what we were the previous two years then?  I truly do not get it.  If they called this their religious blessing or the actual name of this particular ceremony, I would understand a whole lot better - but using the word wedding when they are already wed, along with things like showers and registries is just off-putting. 

Especially when you're looking at quite a substantial sum to attend and take vacation time off of work.  I don't see how you can wed again in the same marriage, but I do understand religious ceremonies.  And this one in particular requires you to behave as an unwed couple not living together, when we all know that is not the case.  Where I see being the line is not whether they are being just deceitful, but whether the couple is truly behaving in a way as to what this ceremony is and what they are asking of their guests.  Otherwise it's asking ME to be deceitful for them if we go along with it, imo and I don't like it one bit.

Redneck Gravy

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #88 on: April 17, 2014, 03:23:11 PM »
This has happened recently in my family and I found I have rather strong views on it personally.  We were invited to a family members religious wedding 2 years after their legal ceremony.  Both DH & I were confused.  They share a last name, refer to each other as husband & wife, live together, share their married benefits and really, behave as a married couple in every sense of the word.  So that was the first thing that sprung to mind for me, we have already acknowledged the marriage by sending gifts and congratulations.  We were not invited to the first ceremony so witnessing then was not an option.

So two years later receiving this invite coupled with all the big white wedding traditions (showers, registries) has all left a bad taste in our mouths.  There are several of us in the family who are very confused, asked each other what was up - should we send gifts?  Go?  What do we do?  I get that now is their religious ceremony, but I have to think what we were the previous two years then?  I truly do not get it.  If they called this their religious blessing or the actual name of this particular ceremony, I would understand a whole lot better - but using the word wedding when they are already wed, along with things like showers and registries is just off-putting. 

Especially when you're looking at quite a substantial sum to attend and take vacation time off of work.  I don't see how you can wed again in the same marriage, but I do understand religious ceremonies.  And this one in particular requires you to behave as an unwed couple not living together, when we all know that is not the case.  Where I see being the line is not whether they are being just deceitful, but whether the couple is truly behaving in a way as to what this ceremony is and what they are asking of their guests.  Otherwise it's asking ME to be deceitful for them if we go along with it, imo and I don't like it one bit.

There's no way to make this sound like anything but a gift grab. 

Dealing with one of these right now in our family... deliberately deceitful so they can have their BWW long after the fact.  They both have said "we feel like we didn't get the wedding gifts we would have had we had a BWW so we are having it now"
 
Calling it a renewal of their vows or a celebration reception would be acceptable - calling it a wedding, not really. 

CakeEater

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2748
Re: Wedding reenactment-- really hope I convinced my friend not to.
« Reply #89 on: April 17, 2014, 06:47:40 PM »
This has happened recently in my family and I found I have rather strong views on it personally.  We were invited to a family members religious wedding 2 years after their legal ceremony.  Both DH & I were confused.  They share a last name, refer to each other as husband & wife, live together, share their married benefits and really, behave as a married couple in every sense of the word.  So that was the first thing that sprung to mind for me, we have already acknowledged the marriage by sending gifts and congratulations.  We were not invited to the first ceremony so witnessing then was not an option.

So two years later receiving this invite coupled with all the big white wedding traditions (showers, registries) has all left a bad taste in our mouths.  There are several of us in the family who are very confused, asked each other what was up - should we send gifts?  Go?  What do we do?  I get that now is their religious ceremony, but I have to think what we were the previous two years then?  I truly do not get it.  If they called this their religious blessing or the actual name of this particular ceremony, I would understand a whole lot better - but using the word wedding when they are already wed, along with things like showers and registries is just off-putting. 

Especially when you're looking at quite a substantial sum to attend and take vacation time off of work.  I don't see how you can wed again in the same marriage, but I do understand religious ceremonies.  And this one in particular requires you to behave as an unwed couple not living together, when we all know that is not the case.  Where I see being the line is not whether they are being just deceitful, but whether the couple is truly behaving in a way as to what this ceremony is and what they are asking of their guests.  Otherwise it's asking ME to be deceitful for them if we go along with it, imo and I don't like it one bit.

There's no way to make this sound like anything but a gift grab. 

Dealing with one of these right now in our family... deliberately deceitful so they can have their BWW long after the fact.  They both have said "we feel like we didn't get the wedding gifts we would have had we had a BWW so we are having it now"
 
Calling it a renewal of their vows or a celebration reception would be acceptable - calling it a wedding, not really.

And that mindset doesn't even make any sense! It costs a whole lot more money to put on a BWW than couples usually 'recoup' in gifts.

I suspect that people either get swept up in the sponteneity of 'Let's get married right away!' or do a small ceremony for the benefits etc, and later start to regret the lack of the ceremony and the flowers and the dress and the dancing and the being the centre of everyone's attention for a day, and figure they'll just do it now, two years later.

Don't get me wrong, that stuff's great! My wedding day was the greatest day ever for me - I love all that stuff. But of course the whole hoopla is to get married. if you're already married, the rest is just a weird performance.