News: IT'S THE 2ND ANNUAL GUATEMALA LIBRARY PROJECT BOOK DRIVE!    LOOKING FOR DONATIONS OF SCIENCE BOOKS THIS YEAR.    Check it out in the "Extending the Hand of Kindness" folder or here: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=139832.msg3372084#msg3372084   

  • November 20, 2017, 08:53:01 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Already married  (Read 16940 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Margo

  • Member
  • Posts: 2153
Re: Already married
« Reply #60 on: February 12, 2016, 03:01:14 PM »
Given the circumstances, I'd be looking at the second ceremony as more of an extension of the first ceremony rather than a re-enactment.  It's a short time between the two events, and if things were different it would be only one ceremony for the couple to be married before their mothers, and before their extended family and friends.  The fact that it will now be two occasions rather than one is just a function of the unfortunate circumstances.  But it doesn't change what they're trying to do, which is to be married in front of the people they care about.  I don't see anything wrong with the plan, and wouldn't want the couple to feel bad or awkward about it at all.

I think this is an excellent point.

Alicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 774
Re: Already married
« Reply #61 on: February 12, 2016, 03:10:30 PM »
It seems to me if moving wedding up due to moms health then shows that the couple views that ceremoney as their wedding.  The important one they need mothers at. So it shows me if i was a regular guest that they don't value the second ceremony as they would have moved that up too. So ues the couple is showing that 2nd is not important to them and is just a show. So skip the show keep the party. I know i would be kinda annoid even if i attended a 3 month vow renewal.
Then again i have only seen vow renewals in real life as a prelide to divorce. They seem to happen 5 or 10 years in and couples who do not trust that they are in it for life

rose red

  • Member
  • Posts: 9545
Re: Already married
« Reply #62 on: February 12, 2016, 03:32:03 PM »
The second ceremony is just for show and doesn't mean anything? Wow. To me, the second ceremony is the original wedding. They planned and paid and printed the invitations. It's not easy to redo all that (booking a room, food, flowers, etc.) up three months. A guest won't feel "important" if they weren't at the small rushed wedding held because of their dying mothers? Seems to me, they don't need such people in their lives.

Alicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 774
Re: Already married
« Reply #63 on: February 12, 2016, 03:39:28 PM »
Well the important part is the real wedding that occurs in front of their mothers. If that was not true they wouldn't have moved it up.
Anything that mattters would be first day. Now lets imagine bad scenario of moms death. If only one wedding day them mom will have been there and missed reception. If second then well if 2nd vow renewal matters at all built in sadness of mom missing.

Yvaine

  • Member
  • Posts: 10037
Re: Already married
« Reply #64 on: February 12, 2016, 03:47:10 PM »
Well the important part is the real wedding that occurs in front of their mothers. If that was not true they wouldn't have moved it up.
Anything that mattters would be first day. Now lets imagine bad scenario of moms death. If only one wedding day them mom will have been there and missed reception. If second then well if 2nd vow renewal matters at all built in sadness of mom missing.

The moms are presumably in the hospital and wouldn't be able to make it to a larger, outside event in any case, and the hospital room won't fit all of the couple's friends and relatives, so I don't agree. They're moving up the part that they can make accessible to the moms, and they're also keeping the part that is welcoming to everybody else.

gramma dishes

  • Member
  • Posts: 7329
Re: Already married
« Reply #65 on: February 12, 2016, 04:32:57 PM »
Given the circumstances, I'd be looking at the second ceremony as more of an extension of the first ceremony rather than a re-enactment.  It's a short time between the two events, and if things were different it would be only one ceremony for the couple to be married before their mothers, and before their extended family and friends.  The fact that it will now be two occasions rather than one is just a function of the unfortunate circumstances.  But it doesn't change what they're trying to do, which is to be married in front of the people they care about.  I don't see anything wrong with the plan, and wouldn't want the couple to feel bad or awkward about it at all.

That's how I feel too.  It's one wedding in two parts.  Part One for the mothers and Part Two for everyone else the couple loves and are loved by.

turnip

  • Member
  • Posts: 862
Re: Already married
« Reply #66 on: February 12, 2016, 05:23:32 PM »
Honestly this is an etiquette issue I have little patience with.   If one of my guests has a problem with my holding a ceremony for my terminally ill mother and MIL then they are people I'd prefer not to associate with anyway.  They can drop the friendship if it bothers them that much. 

menley

  • Member
  • Posts: 1100
Re: Already married
« Reply #67 on: February 12, 2016, 07:20:45 PM »
Honestly this is an etiquette issue I have little patience with.   If one of my guests has a problem with my holding a ceremony for my terminally ill mother and MIL then they are people I'd prefer not to associate with anyway.  They can drop the friendship if it bothers them that much.

Agreed.

OP, if I were you, I'd simply wait until after your private ceremony with the family and send the original invitations - include a note, don't include a note, either way you are fine. I think anyone who is offended by it not being the "real"/original ceremony is someone you don't want in your life.

shhh its me

  • Member
  • Posts: 7526
Re: Already married
« Reply #68 on: February 12, 2016, 07:32:54 PM »
The second ceremony is just for show and doesn't mean anything? Wow. To me, the second ceremony is the original wedding. They planned and paid and printed the invitations. It's not easy to redo all that (booking a room, food, flowers, etc.) up three months. A guest won't feel "important" if they weren't at the small rushed wedding held because of their dying mothers? Seems to me, they don't need such people in their lives.
Honestly this is an etiquette issue I have little patience with.   If one of my guests has a problem with my holding a ceremony for my terminally ill mother and MIL then they are people I'd prefer not to associate with anyway.  They can drop the friendship if it bothers them that much.

I'm just going to agree and have a coke

Agreed.

OP, if I were you, I'd simply wait until after your private ceremony with the family and send the original invitations - include a note, don't include a note, either way you are fine. I think anyone who is offended by it not being the "real"/original ceremony is someone you don't want in your life.

gellchom

  • Member
  • Posts: 3722
Re: Already married
« Reply #69 on: February 12, 2016, 09:00:27 PM »
If I were one of your guests, I'd understand the reason for your earlier quiet, intimate ceremony.  Of course you want both mothers there to see the two of you begin your new life together.

And I can tell you with absolute honesty that I wouldn't blink an eye at your having another ceremony in a small church or a huge cathedral on the previously planned wedding day. 

I'm not sure what the pastor/priest/rabbi person would want to call it, but in some cultures there are always two ceremonies.  One at our equivalent of a courthouse for legality and the other in a house of worship with friends and family as a religious rite.  Two different kinds of ceremonies, each having a valid place.

And I'd follow it up with your reception as you had originally planned.  Why not?

Even where it's not required that the religious and civil rites be separate, sometimes they are.  And then they really are both weddings.  I've seen this several times.  Usually it's just a few days apart for some technical issue. For example, when my husband performs an out of state wedding for a friend or cousin, they may (especially years ago when it wasn't as common) find it easier and cheaper to go to city hall for the civil marriage a day or two before or after the wedding than to get him a pro hac license.  Or like when we got married, Wisconsin, where our wedding was, required you to get your license in person three weeks before the wedding, but we lived in Massachusetts.  It turned out they'd waive the 3-week rule for $30, but if they hadn't, we'd just have gone to City Hall in Boston beforehand.  And then of course there was my dying friend, and a few weeks ago a young friend who went to the courthouse, without even their parents, three months before the wedding, for insurance reasons. 

In all these cases, no special notice of the facts was given, but it was no secret, either.  In the technical glitch cases of a few days' separation, probably few guests knew, but in the others, I think everyone knew. 

The religious weddings were just called weddings, and that's what they were.  I can't speak for any other religion, but in Judaism, the marriage ceremony is a specific rite with a legal significance in Jewish law (as is divorce).   It's not simply "blessing" a civil marriage performed earlier.  The state has its requirements and the religion has its own.  In the US, state governments have arranged it so that religious (and other) private officiants' ceremonies can satisfy the state requirement for a ritual, but they still must do the state licensing requirements. 

The point is that if the civil and religious ceremonies are done separately, they are still both weddings.  The couple was not already married, for purposes of one or the other legal systems, by virtue of the other ritual.  It is very offensive for others to insist that a couple who has only had a civil ceremony is "already married" even in their religion such that they shouldn't have a wedding. 

The etiquette faux pas is like having more than one big celebration to which guests are invited, or having both a destination wedding and a BWW for no reason other than to have things both ways and maximize attention and gifts or to cheap out on the guests.  But no one has been discussing situations like those.  Even a private civil marriage for reasons of insurance or deployment or other reasons that some find less compelling than the OP's don't raise that issue and IMO really aren't anyone's business, even if they do disapprove. 

Until very recently, same-sex couples in many states had to go to another state for a civil ritual before or after their wedding in their home city.  I never saw a notation in the invitations. Everyone either knew or didn't care which came first.  I think it would've been pretty heartless to insist they should call it a blessing or reenactment or preenactment, not a wedding, or that they should have only a reception. 

For those who say the guests have the right to see The Moment, or to be notified if they will not, remember that the civil requirements aren't satisfied until the witnesses sign and the officiant mails in the license.  The guests don't usually see those moments anyway.  Ditto some religious rituals. 

If I were the OP, I would feel self-conscious wearing a wedding gown, having attendants, and so forth if I had to call the event a renewal, reenactment, blessing, or something like that. 

I think she should go ahead and call it her wedding.  Then she should look over her guest list and see if there are guests who won't already know the situation and maybe even just those who would expect to be informed or care if they weren't.  And then I'd send them a brief email or something explaining the situation.   But I'd keep it out of the invitation, so as not to give it so much focus.  Calling it something other than a wedding would even make it the primary focus.  I like Greenbird's way of putting it, that the two events are really one, the second simply being an extension of the first. 
« Last Edit: February 13, 2016, 12:17:53 AM by gellchom »

sammycat

  • Member
  • Posts: 7934
Re: Already married
« Reply #70 on: February 12, 2016, 10:18:45 PM »
Honestly this is an etiquette issue I have little patience with.   If one of my guests has a problem with my holding a ceremony for my terminally ill mother and MIL then they are people I'd prefer not to associate with anyway.  They can drop the friendship if it bothers them that much.

Pod!

As I mentioned earlier, I usually don't agree with the two weddings situation in general. But good golly, if someone can't get a a pass because of not one, but two, dying family members, then there's something wrong with the world.

JoieGirl7

  • Member
  • Posts: 7908
Re: Already married
« Reply #71 on: February 12, 2016, 10:33:31 PM »
It doesn't explain why a previous poster would say that it would be ok to have a vow renewal within a few months of the wedding.  Vow renewals after along periods of time is fairly standard.  But the poster said that it would only be ok for a re-enactment of sorts after a few months in the case of a "marriage crisis" and this doesn't make sense to me.

I think you  misunderstood me. I am actually against vow renewals after three months because I think they have their place at a milestone anniversary or after a crisis. IMHO those vow renewals after a few months of marriage are re-enactments which are fine and dandy for truly historic events but not for Jane and John  Doe's wedding.

I'm happy to see my friends get married because it is an important event in their lives. But if I can't be there for some reason or another, I don't really need a re-enactment because essentially that's just play-acting.

All I have to go by is what you said which was:

Vow renewals have their place IMVHO at a wedding anniversary (25 years+) or after a crisis. But not three months into a marriage for show.
I think the OP should just have a big party with their friends and family, but no ceremony of any type.



I don't think its playacting at all.  I also don't think it's "for show."
 
Every time you vow something in the presence of witnesses, you are committing yourself.  The vows may be the same but the assembled group of people is not and so it's not truly a re-enactment or playacting.  Because now, you have added to the number of witnesses to your promises.

I think everyone agrees that it's not something that should be kept a secret.  If you don't want to witness it, you shouldn't have to.
 
And I don't think someone should do this lightly--

good golly, if someone can't get a a pass because of not one, but two, dying family members, then there's something wrong with the world.

These are extreme circumstances.

iridaceae

  • Boring in real life as well
  • Member
  • Posts: 3573
Re: Already married
« Reply #72 on: February 13, 2016, 03:36:40 AM »

For those who say the guests have the right to see The Moment, or to be notified if they will not, remember that the civil requirements aren't satisfied until the witnesses sign and the officiant mails in the license.  The guests don't usually see those moments anyway.  Ditto some religious rituals. 

Momentary hijack but at the Quaker (Society of Friends) wedding I went to everyone who was there at the meeting house was invited to sign the marriage certificate as a witness.

Anyhow, you want to bring the wedding up to make sure your mothers can attend, then have a wedding three months later with your friends. Any real friends and family will understand because who on Earth would not want the mothers well enough to be there for the original date? Ignore the rest.
Nothing to see here.

Oh Joy

  • Member
  • Posts: 1982
Re: Already married
« Reply #73 on: February 13, 2016, 11:50:24 AM »
OP, my sympathies for your circumstances.   I don't think anyone will begrudge your having a private ceremony separate from a public celebration four months later.   But I do encourage you to distinguish between the two.

If you're gathering parents and siblings to witness exchanging vows, legally getting married, and celebrating after (my assumption based on your OP's mention of paying for two weddings), then that is your wedding.  A large celebration of the marriage with many friends and family is a wonderful thing, and I'm sure your guests with participate with joy, but they're celebrating the marriage that already exists and not serving as witnesses to your life-altering day.  I do think they should know what they are celebrating.

Your lives have many changes in this next year.   Don't let the sunk cost of the printed invitations be a restriction.

Best wishes.

shhh its me

  • Member
  • Posts: 7526
Re: Already married
« Reply #74 on: February 13, 2016, 05:24:55 PM »
OP, my sympathies for your circumstances.   I don't think anyone will begrudge your having a private ceremony separate from a public celebration four months later.   But I do encourage you to distinguish between the two.

If you're gathering parents and siblings to witness exchanging vows, legally getting married, and celebrating after (my assumption based on your OP's mention of paying for two weddings), then that is your wedding.  A large celebration of the marriage with many friends and family is a wonderful thing, and I'm sure your guests with participate with joy, but they're celebrating the marriage that already exists and not serving as witnesses to your life-altering day.  I do think they should know what they are celebrating.

Your lives have many changes in this next year.   Don't let the sunk cost of the printed invitations be a restriction.

Best wishes.

I don't think anyone is saying OP be deceitful.  I don't know the guest list but for example , they invite parents and sibling to the ceremony for moms , that means friend, cousins, aunts and uncles wont be at the ceremony.  I'm going to guess OP and her mom will talk with those Aunts Uncles and cousins at some point in the next 3 months, I'm going to assume OP will speak to her friends. It's possible she wont but if everybody knows already there is no reason to "Put it in writing" its a wedding invitation not a contract.


 I don't think you're saying " 4 months ago my sister was dying ,I spoke to my niece and she moved up her wedding so that my sister could attend. They both told me all about it , I saw the pictures, niece told me the original reception was still on.  Now I received an invitation to her wedding on the original date. Whats up with that? obliviously niece is trying to trick me into thinking this is the ONLY wedding."    would be valid. (general you)

I'm not saying people shouldn't know just saying that rewording the invitation is not the only why to do it.


Sorry, this topic is locked. Only admins and moderators can reply.