Big wedding when you're already married

[raeoflyte]

Apr 24, 2012 13:31:33 GMT -5 8 Bit WWBG said:

... You NEVER know what is an issue for a couple.

Exactly! You can't get to know anyone if you don't ever ask a nosy question, and sometimes it opens up a wound for someone, and it may come across as a judgment. When it wasn't meant to hurt someone, most people just let it go.

[Works4me]

FB - just curious - are they receiving financial support from either family aside from paying for the wedding? In other words, are they self-supporting?

[Firebird]

You can't get to know anyone if you don't ever ask a nosy question, and sometimes it opens up a wound for someone, and it may come across as a judgment.

That's why I tend not to ask sensitive questions of people I don't know well. The exception (WWBG, raeoflyte, and Mid are probably chuckling right now since I've asked all of you nosy questions at some point and don't technically "know" any of you) is when a conversation seems to allow for it. Also when I get the impression that, like me, someone doesn't mind being asked personal questions.

Unless I get that good opening in a conversation, I wouldn't pry. I would never, for example, go up to a recently-married colleague and ask when they were planning on kids. To me, that crosses the line into intrusive.

I might, however, ask her that same question if we talking at a social work event about our feelings on having kids early on in marriage. The conversation reasonably allows for that sort of question - and of course, not wanting to answer is totally fine.

[Deleted]

I am not trying to imply that it is wrong to ask or get personal with people. Not at all.

[Firebird]

FB - just curious - are they receiving financial support from either family aside from paying for the wedding? In other words, are they self-supporting?

Yeah, they do pretty well actually. Not financially dependent on anyone AFAIK.

[Angel!]

Apr 24, 2012 11:05:29 GMT -5 Firebird said:

I guess because I see the downsides of legal marriage, but still understand that a couple might want to consider themselves fully committed I don't have a problem with calling your significant other your spouse.

This is just a philosophical question, but are you really and truly "fully committed" to each other if you won't risk the "downsides" of legal marriage (presuming you have the ability to get legally married, of course)?

I am not talking about just the risk of downsides that might come with divorce or a financially idiotic spouse. I am also talking about real downsides, like paying more in taxes, or losing a pension or alimony from a previous marriage, or other tangible things that you will lose when you get legally married.

I heard one couple talking about how if they got married it would cost them over $10K extra in taxes each year. That wasn't a risk, that is an absolute cost of marriage for them. Now I suppose it comes down to what marriage means to you & how much you are willing to pay for it, but I don't blame anyone that doesn't want to get legally married because it is a financially costly decision.

[thyme4change]

I heard one couple talking about how if they got married it would cost them over $10K extra in taxes each year. That wasn't a risk, that is an absolute cost of marriage for them.

If they really loved each other, they would gladly pay the $10k in taxes so random people on message boards would judge their love as "acceptable."

[Deleted]

'But for me it makes a big difference whether the couple is actually getting married or just having some kind of commitment ceremony.'

Why? When you have indicated that knowing will not change your behavior. Sorry, but the only conclusion i can draw is that you feel you have the right and need to judge other people ?

[weltschmerz]

I've gotten the, 'are you two really married' more than once just because I didn't change my last name.
--------------------------
Where I live, your legal name is the name you were born with. Women don't take their husbands' names after marriage.

[Firebird]

Oped, I guess from that I can conclude that you have never had a strong opinion on something?

[Deleted]

I do have strong opinions on things. But I don't go looking for things to have strong opinions about, or to apply my strong opinions too, if that makes sense... I don't need people to tell me things so that I can know about them and form a strong opinion regarding their choices and behavior...

For instance, I do have a strong opinion about the legal status and availability of abortion... However, I do not need all of my friends to tell me if they had one or not, so that I can properly judge how I feel about them and their decisions.

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"Exactly! You can't get to know anyone if you don't ever ask a nosy question, and sometimes it opens up a wound for someone, and it may come across as a judgment. When it wasn't meant to hurt someone, most people just let it go.":::...

I surmise that you have had to put up with all sorts of ignorant questions over the years. I'm glad you were able to "just let them go". You are a better person than I am.

[thyme4change]

Sorry, but the only conclusion i can draw is that you feel you have the right and need to judge other people ?

This is how it feels to me too.

In reality, marriage should be a very personal thing. However, we made it society's business. Some people want it to remain society's business, and some people want it to be more personal. It's quite a cluster.

[Firebird]

For instance, I do have a strong opinion about the legal status and availability of abortion... However, I do not need all of my friends to tell me if they had one or not, so that I can properly judge how I feel about them and their decisions.

Neither do I... but, knowing that your friend has had an abortion and feeling the way you do, you'd have an opinion on it, yes?

I know about this friend of DH's having a separate wedding; therefore, I have an opinion on it, because this is a subject about which I have strong opinions.

I've stated it wouldn't change my behavior, so you are essentially judging me for having feelings about something. I don't see how that's any better in your mind.

[thyme4change]

This has turned into quite a cat fight.

Meee-ow

[Deleted]

Apr 24, 2012 16:01:08 GMT -5 8 Bit WWBG said:

...:::"Exactly! You can't get to know anyone if you don't ever ask a nosy question, and sometimes it opens up a wound for someone, and it may come across as a judgment. When it wasn't meant to hurt someone, most people just let it go.":::...

I surmise that you have had to put up with all sorts of ignorant questions over the years. I'm glad you were able to "just let them go". You are a better person than I am.

I was hesitant to ask about the "piece of paper" and state thing because I knew I was just being nosey and I figured people already stay in your business IRL. Plus I didn't want to seem rude or offend, even if I am just some anonymous person on a message board.

But I figured you were smart enough to know you weren't obligated to answer and all would be well if you just ignored the question. Thanks for answering though.

[Firebird]

This has turned into quite a cat fight.

I don't think so. I like oped and her opinions are always interesting to me. This is still "friendly discussion" territory for me personally.

Except for Dark's question this morning. That annoyed me.

[Firebird]

And honestly, if the conclusion here is that I'm judgmental, I can live with that. I think people who claim to be non-judgmental are kidding themselves. Everyone has opinions about things and everyone judges. Whether you keep it to yourself or not is one thing, but whether or not you actually judge the actions of others... I don't know anyone who doesn't, but I do know plenty of people who kid themselves about the fact that they do.

So okay, I'm judgmental. That's fair enough. When it's a close personal friend, I don't let those judgments get the last word. I almost always put the relationship over how I feel about someone's actions. So it comes down to how I feel about something, and I have a right to my feelings just like everyone else.

[Works4me]

Dang - was hoping for a good cat fight!

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"But I figured you were smart enough to know you weren't obligated to answer and all would be well if you just ignored the question. Thanks for answering though.":::...

Its not the answering that is the issue though: the question being asked already did the damage.

I do realize that most people have the best of intentions, and that some questions are "normal to ask" and that each individual asker does not know we've bickered over the issue (marriage, the last name, kids... whatever) at the time they ask the question.

None of that changes the fact that I and I alone have to deal with the aftermath of the feelings which were dredged up by the question.

ETA: so my point is that I wish some people would just consider the consequences or implications before "robo-asking" the typical questions.

[Sum Dum Gai]

For the last time, NO those are not fake marriages. They're as real as they can get right now. It's different when you CAN'T get married because the government is denying you a basic right. I've said this at least twice now, and it's starting to get annoying. If there's one thing I am rabidly against, it's gay marriage not being permitted. They should be able to get married just like anyone else. I have ALWAYS thought that. I have NEVER not thought that.

I'm kind of sick of people implying that I think gay marriage is invalid just because I consider legal marriages more valid than non-legal marriages WHEN YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO DO EITHER. There's a big freaking difference there.

Roger. So since gay couples can't get married legally, their commitment ceremonies count as a real marriage. Since straight couples can get married legally, if they have the exact same feelings about each other, same commitment level, but do a commitment ceremony instead of a traditional marriage they have a fake marriage. Presumably then if gay couples could get legally married, but chose to do the same commitment ceremony that you just said you consider a real marriage it would instead be a fake marriage. Basically your only opinion on this is that the government has to sign off on your particular ceremony for it to be real, and if they don't offer you one you can do whatever you want?

I have to say I'm really surprised by that. You seem like a more open minded person than that.

Except for Dark's question this morning. That annoyed me.

Sorry, I had to ask it that way to hopefully get you to see how illogical, in my opinion, your position on this is.

[Firebird]

Sorry, I had to ask it that way to hopefully get you to see how illogical, in my opinion, your position on this is.

It annoyed me because you should have known the answer. We've talked about gay marriage before and you know where I stand, so it's ridiculous and insulting to ask me a question that implies I am against gay marriage when you know perfectly well I'm rabidly in favor of it.

And my position is not illogical. Your gross and inaccurate summary below is illogical.

Basically your only opinion on this is that the government has to sign off on your particular ceremony for it to be real, and if they don't offer you one you can do whatever you want?

This is not what I said at all.

[Sum Dum Gai]

This is not what I said at all.

Umm... really?

For the last time, NO those are not fake marriages. They're as real as they can get right now. It's different when you CAN'T get married because the government is denying you a basic right.

"Fake" gay marriages aren't fake because the government doesn't allow them to marry.

I consider legal marriages more valid than non-legal marriages WHEN YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO DO EITHER.

"Fake" straight marriages are actually fake because the government gives them the option to have legal marriage.

How else am I supposed to interpret your position on this?

ETA - I'm seriously asking by the way. I'm not just trying to be a pain in the ass. I'm being dead serious when I say your position on this thread is really surprising me.

[Firebird]

Let me see if I can summarize my position in a few short and hard-to-misinterpret sentences.

1. To me, the word "wedding" implies a ceremony during which you become legally wed - FOR STRAIGHT COUPLES ONLY (see #2). And since this is currently the LEGAL DEFINITION, I don't see why my saying that is oh-so-radical.

2. Gay people don't have the option of becoming legally wed in most states, which is ridiculous, so this definition can hardly be expected to apply to them. If they have a wedding party to celebrate becoming spouses to one another in their hearts, that's pretty much the best they can do under our fucked-up system. And of course I'd consider them married. But it's apples and oranges because they CANNOT get legally married. And nobody is being misled about whether they're becoming legally married at that ceremony.

3. Straight people who DO have the option of getting married, invite people to their wedding, and get married some other time in secret are (IMO) being deceptive unless they tell people that they are already legally married or that they don't plan to get legally married right now.

4. PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR MARRIAGE.[/u] I keep saying that, and no one seems to think that I mean it. If you think it's the right thing to do, then you go right ahead and fill out the legal marriage certificate and have a wedding five years later. I personally[/u] think this is deceptive, but my opinion doesn't actually matter[/u].

5. It shouldn't matter to anyone how I feel about this. It shouldn't matter how ANYONE feels about ANYTHING related to your marriage. A marriage is between two people, and not the business of anyone else. Which is why I wouldn't let MY FEELINGS control my actions. I would go to the wedding with a smile on my face and act the same way I would at any other wedding. My feelings are my private business, just as your marriage and how you choose to conduct it is YOUR private business.

[shanendoah]

Firebird: You know I love you, but I actually think Dark summed up your position pretty well.
From what you've said, you don't consider standing in front of friends and family and pledging your lives together to be the "real" wedding. You feel that signing the marriage certificate is the only indicator of a real wedding - with the exception of when the government doesn't allow the signing of that certificate.
Angel D didn't consider herself "married" because she hadn't pledged her commitment in front of friends and family, but you would have considered that a "fake" wedding, since she had already signed the paper, and would be hurt for not being invited to the "real" thing.
To me, a wedding is when you stand up in front of your chosen community and pledge your lives together. That can happen at the same time as/before/after/completely in lieu of signing a piece of paper. And it does not matter if the government is involved or not.
To me, the problem here is one of definitions- you consider getting married and having a wedding to be perfectly synonomous, or think they should be, in order for the wedding to be "real". I think Angel, Dark, and myself see them as separate events that are often, but do not have to be, linked. One is a legal action. The other is a ceremony.
(And again, I think that purposely fleecing the groom's family, as appears to be the case with the OP situation, is wrong.)

We are not trying to pick on you, we are just trying to get you to look at what you've said here. Maybe that's not how you feel, or how you think you feel, but it is what you've written.

[Deleted]

Oh, I'm having fun... I like FB

I will not say I'm never judgmental... But more and more as I age I'm of a live and let live opinion ( obviously as long as you aren't hurting anyone else) ...

I might question why people I know do things, but I try 1) remember its not about me 2) give them the benefit of any doubt... that I don't automatically know the 'whole story' ... 3) Understand that just because not everyone's following my road, doesn't automatically mean they are on the wrong path...

[Firebird]

We are not trying to pick on you, we are just trying to get you to look at what you've said here. Maybe that's not how you feel, or how you think you feel, but it is what you've written.

I don't need you guys to make me look at what I've said here. I know what I said. I've said what I meant. I know how I feel. And yes, you are picking on me - mostly for having a different opinion than you do. I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but let's call it what it is.

Because I personally feel that a wedding (when you're talking about a straight couple) implies a legal commitment, and would feel deceived if I learned that it wasn't that before or after the fact, you are saying that I'm being illogical/judgmental/nosy/etc.

[Firebird]

To me, the problem here is one of definitions- you consider getting married and having a wedding to be perfectly synonomous, or think they should be, in order for the wedding to be "real". I think Angel, Dark, and myself see them as separate events that are often, but do not have to be, linked. One is a legal action. The other is a ceremony.

Exactly, and you guys are calling my position the weird/judgmental/illogical one. That's the part I don't get. What's so wrong with my position? Hoops pointed out pages ago that it's pretty illogical of Angel to say that the legal marriage didn't matter to her, yet at the same time refrain from telling people because she was afraid of how they would react. If it didn't matter, why would she avoid telling people?

Different people have different feelings about things. Different people have different definitions for things. I don't really see how my position is any less logical or valid than any of yours.

[shanendoah]

No, we're not picking on you, any more than you were picking on Angel. We are making our case and pointing out where your arguments have led us to the conclusions we have made about your case.
And since this OP started with a question about having a ceremony after being legally married, we are answering the question you asked, and explaining why we feel the way we do.
There is nothing wrong with feeling the way you do. But you have to understand that whether or not you feel deceived is your decision. And there is also nothing wrong with those of us who wouldn't feel deceived or like we were purposely deceiving you. That's the thing about feelings. There's no right or wrong, they just are.

[thyme4change]

I don't think it is weird or illogical. I just generally don't care about other people that much. If they are married, or not married. Or throwing a celebration and calling it a wedding 6 months after they legally got married, or whatever. I'm just too narcassitic or apathetic or whatever to get all mustered up about it. Whatever. But, then again, I'll go to any party, any time. So, there is no good reason needed for me. I won't questions it.

Also, as I recall, even though I was hurt leading up to my friends' "wedding" - I remember after the wedding my husband asking if it made a difference to me on that day, and I remember answering "Didn't think about it once. I was having too much fun."