Big wedding when you're already married

[Firebird]

Well, I give way better presents at we just had a child together parties.

Yeah, about that... did I mention you're totally invited to Firechick's "welcome to the world" party that I just now decided to have?

[midjd]

There's nothing dishonest about it. In a common-law marriage, it's perfectly acceptable to call your partner a husband or wife.

Most states have done away with common-law marriage. I'm talking about people who have dated for a few years, aren't engaged, but refer to their partner as "husband" or "wife" to others. How is that not being dishonest?*

It's just the general principle (same as the situation in the OP) of trying to have it both ways - either you want to be married, with the rights/responsibilities that entails, or you don't, but you don't get to pick and choose which aspects of marriage/singledom you want to apply to your own life.

*Again, not referring to situations in which the parties can't marry, for whatever reason (e.g. gay marriage).

[Sum Dum Gai]

Yeah, about that... did I mention you're totally invited to Firechick's "welcome to the world" party that I just now decided to have?

I'm already working on getting some Firechick onesies made up. I'll have to figure out the real gift too. Oh, and check your dang PMs.

Oh, and just so you know, welcome to the world parties are more traditionally called baby showers. It's easier to fit on invite cards.

I have no idea why they're always held before the actual baby arrives though. Doesn't really make much sense. I guess to keep the new kiddo from being exposed to all the germs or something.

[Deleted]

"If you really cared that much about a commitment to God, why sneak off and do your real wedding without him? "

Maybe because they don't view the JP as the 'real wedding' .... we've just heard from several people about how the signing of the paperwork and the religious ceremony are separated... some by an hour, some by days... ultimately how is this any different ?? Maybe they view the upcoming wedding as the 'real wedding'...

[hoops902]

"So the back-up plan was to have my great uncle "marry" us in the church and then we would go down to the JOP to get our license signed."

I assume your uncle was not an approved officiant though. Yes, you can say the vows here too without really being married, but you can't say the vows with an officiant there and not be married.

You can't go through the ceremony of getting married, with someone approved to marry people, and then choose not to sign the paperwork and continue as unmarried. At least here you can't.

[Firebird]

How is it billing it as something else? It is a religious wedding. It might lack the signing of the legal form, but all the other aspects remain. It is an announcement of your commitment to God & the world & having a public ceremony for it.

Because when you invite people to your wedding, it's implied that the legal part of the wedding is happening at that point in time.

You're arguing both sides. You're saying that the legal marriage didn't mean anything but at the same time, you weren't telling people because if they had known about it they wouldn't have cared about coming to the religious wedding. Why wouldn't they have cared to come to your religious wedding if the legal wedding didn't matter?

In other words, why would you need to lie by omission and pretend that the legal part was happening at the same time as the religious ceremony part if the legal part didn't matter?

[hoops902]

"Yeah, about that... did I mention you're totally invited to Firechick's "welcome to the world" party that I just now decided to have? "

Are you going to have it when she's 6 and just pretend she didn't exist until then?

[CarolinaKat]

Apr 23, 2012 14:19:54 GMT -5 Firebird said:

Well, I give way better presents at we just had a child together parties.

Yeah, about that... did I mention you're totally invited to Firechick's "welcome to the world" party that I just now decided to have?

I had one of those when I was born... I was 'christened' or whatever... apparently it was a BIG DEAL and there were presents and cake and I slept through the whole thing!

[weltschmerz]

Apr 23, 2012 14:21:11 GMT -5 midjd said:

There's nothing dishonest about it. In a common-law marriage, it's perfectly acceptable to call your partner a husband or wife.

Most states have done away with common-law marriage. I'm talking about people who have dated for a few years, aren't engaged, but refer to their partner as "husband" or "wife" to others. How is that not being dishonest?

I'm not talking about dating. If you're living together, and have children together, there's nothing wrong with calling each other husband and wife.

[hoops902]

Apr 23, 2012 14:24:42 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Apr 23, 2012 14:21:11 GMT -5 midjd said:

Most states have done away with common-law marriage. I'm talking about people who have dated for a few years, aren't engaged, but refer to their partner as "husband" or "wife" to others. How is that not being dishonest?

I'm not talking about dating. If you're living together, and have children together, there's nothing wrong with calling each other husband and wife.

What if you don't have children?

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I assume your uncle was not an approved officiant though. Yes, you can say the vows here too without really being married, but you can't say the vows with an officiant there and not be married.

You can't go through the ceremony of getting married, with someone approved to marry people, and then choose not to sign the paperwork and continue as unmarried. At least here you can't.

No he wasn't. That's a good question, I have no clue if that is the case in Nebraska or not. Never thought to look that far into it.

Fortunately the minister was able to perform the ceremony. He stayed long enough to sign his name on our license and then left. He shipped out a couple hours later.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2012 14:23:41 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

"Yeah, about that... did I mention you're totally invited to Firechick's "welcome to the world" party that I just now decided to have? "

Are you going to have it when she's 6 and just pretend she didn't exist until then?

SNAP!!!

[Firebird]

How would you feel if it was a "religious commitment ceremony" for a couple that was religious? (instead of one that was dishonest with their family)

Not sure what you mean. Are you asking, would it be okay with me if they eloped first and that was their reason?

I don't get this logic though, you are basically saying that if you were honest with people, they wouldn't have done what you wanted them to do, therefore it's ok to lie to them? If people knew you were married they wouldn't have given a shit...so to make sure they cared you didn't tell them. I still think the people who really cared about you would have wanted to come, and those who didn't probably didn't care if you got married or not.

Honestly, I agree and I also can't see how you can say that the legal ceremony doesn't matter when clearly you think it DOES matter (or at least would matter to other people if they'd known).

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2012 14:25:47 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Apr 23, 2012 14:24:42 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I'm not talking about dating. If you're living together, and have children together, there's nothing wrong with calling each other husband and wife.

What if you don't have children?

then you're fornicators who will go straight to hell.

[midjd]

I'm not talking about dating. If you're living together, and have children together, there's nothing wrong with calling each other husband and wife.

Well, that was not the situation I described in my original post on the topic, so I'm not really sure of your point.

My point was only that "husband" and "wife" have specific legal meaning in the US - which is one of the reasons why most states have abolished common-law marriages - and it bugs me when people throw around these terms incorrectly.

[Firebird]

"Yeah, about that... did I mention you're totally invited to Firechick's "welcome to the world" party that I just now decided to have? "

Are you going to have it when she's 6 and just pretend she didn't exist until then?

Then I'd get a bunch of baby crap for a six year old. What's the use of that?

[CarolinaKat]

Apr 23, 2012 14:26:24 GMT -5 Firebird said:

How would you feel if it was a "religious commitment ceremony" for a couple that was religious? (instead of one that was dishonest with their family)

Not sure what you mean. Are you asking, would it be okay with me if they eloped first and that was their reason?

They are already legally married, whether it be by being drunk in Vegas and it just happened, visa rush, insurance rush, deployment, whatever, but the couple HONESTLY wants to get married 'properly' in the eyes of the church, with a traditional ceremony. It's important to them that they have the religous aspect, even though it will be taking place after the legal aspect. Would you be opposed to this? Would you still attend and celebrate their commitment? Or would this still leave a bad taste in your mouth?

[weltschmerz]

What if you don't have children?
----------------------
Still a de facto union. I don't worry about what people want to call each other. In states where gays are still not allowed to legally marry, they can call each other life partners or spouses. It doesn't bug me. Why should it?

[weltschmerz]

About 35% of "marriages" in Quebec are common-law. It's very....common.

[Angel!]

Apr 23, 2012 14:22:40 GMT -5 Firebird said:

You're arguing both sides. You're saying that the legal marriage didn't mean anything but at the same time, you weren't telling people because if they had known about it they wouldn't have cared about coming to the religious wedding. Why wouldn't they have cared to come to your religious wedding if the legal wedding didn't matter?

Let me rephrase that, the legal part didn't mean anything to me. It clearly means something to other people or we wouldn't be having this entire conversation.

It was important TO ME for the wedding to be the real wedding to me & everyone else. But, other people like you would have had the attitude where "You are already married, so this isn't a real wedding" & that would have ruined the whole wedding for me. Then I wouldn't have bothered to have a wedding & frankly would have never felt married with a real marriage commitment.

I wanted some sort of ceremony to represent our marriage, to make it feel official. We did nothing when we signed the papers. In our state you don't even need a JP or witnesses, so ours were literally the only signatures on the license.


ETA - Let me rephrase, If I had told others about the legal signing which matters to them, then I wouldn't have gotten the wedding which mattered to me. If that makes me a dishonest bitch, then I guess that is what I am

[zibazinski]

I'm not having a wedding this time. I told DF this and he's okay with it. Not happy about it but okay. But no way am I doing a JOP thing. Plus, my aunt and uncle want to be there as witnesses and I'm okay with that. But then end of August is their 55th wedding anniversary and their kids never gave them a 50th and I'm giving them their 55th. THAT to me is a big milestone.

[thyme4change]

I'm talking about people who have dated for a few years, aren't engaged, but refer to their partner as "husband" or "wife" to others. How is that not being dishonest?*

Who cares? Honestly, marriage is a legal contract between two people. Their legal dealings, and their tax dealings aren't really any of your business. Married, not married - does it really change your relationship with them? When people say they are married, do you run a background check to make sure they filed the legal document necessary? Do you then find out if they share a checking account or sleep in the same bedroom? So what if two people aren't able to pull the plug on each other, or their breakup must be sanctioned by a judge. Why do you care?

Maybe we need a new word to describe the situation that does not have a legal definition. "Nice to meet you, I'm Thyme. I'm Joe's Schmoopy." Would that work for you?

[imawino]

I guess I'm in the massive minority that would not care in the slightest. To me a marriage and a wedding are two different, but obviously related, things. A wedding is just the public celebration of a couple's marriage or commitment to each other. I can be an invited guest at a wedding but that doesn't mean I'm invited to the private workings of their marriage. In my mind a couple can choose to have a celebration of their marriage when it works best for them, and share whatever details about it they see fit because it's really not my business.

As for all the folks who now see this as a "gift grab", I totally don't get it. If you're getting them a gift because you want to acknowledge that they are "married" they met that criteria. If you are getting them a gift because they have invited you to attend their wedding, that criteria has been met too. If you are just looking for an excuse to not get them a gift, then say no to the wedding.

Dark stole my line about how a we;come to the world party is generally called a "baby shower". People get gifts for those. And sometimes they just send a gift because you had a baby. People often bring gifts to birthday and anniversary parties as well. What's with all the outrage surrounding gift-giving??

[weltschmerz]

As far as I'm concerned the depth of one's commitment comes from your heart, not a piece of paper or blessing from the church. What people choose to call each other is no business of mine.

[imawino]

Re: common law. In some states, a couple must have been presenting themselves publicly as husband and wife for them to legally be considered a common-law marriage. So they very well could have a legitimate reason for doing it. Though I agree with Thyme's post and it doesn't matter to me how people want to refer to their significant other.

[midjd]

Re: common law. In some states, a couple must have been presenting themselves publicly as husband and wife for them to legally be considered a common-law marriage. So they very well could have a legitimate reason for doing it.

So what I don't understand is, if people want the benefits of being married, and want to hold themselves out as husband and wife - why not just, I dunno, get married?

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2012 14:42:02 GMT -5 midjd said:

Re: common law. In some states, a couple must have been presenting themselves publicly as husband and wife for them to legally be considered a common-law marriage. So they very well could have a legitimate reason for doing it.

So what I don't understand is, if people want the benefits of being married, and want to hold themselves out as husband and wife - why not just, I dunno, get married?

I feel the same way. But to each his own.

[Angel!]

Apr 23, 2012 14:42:02 GMT -5 midjd said:

Re: common law. In some states, a couple must have been presenting themselves publicly as husband and wife for them to legally be considered a common-law marriage. So they very well could have a legitimate reason for doing it.

So what I don't understand is, if people want the benefits of being married, and want to hold themselves out as husband and wife - why not just, I dunno, get married?

What benefits to you get from just presenting yourself as married?

Maybe they don't want to get married due to tax reasons or other legal aspects, but still wish to consider themselves married.

I don't see a problem with that.

[hoops902]

"ETA - Let me rephrase, If I had told others about the legal signing which matters to them, then I wouldn't have gotten the wedding which mattered to me. If that makes me a dishonest bitch, then I guess that is what I am"

Honestly, I want to not care since I wouldn't be one that cared if you'd signed the legal papers or not. But there's definitely something about the "if I told people the truth then I wouldn't have gotten what I wanted" attitude that just seems wrong.

"If you are getting them a gift because they have invited you to attend their wedding"

You haven't been invited to a wedding. A wedding is where 2 people get married. I don't mind getting them a gift, but just because someone calls it their wedding doesn't make it so. They aren't getting married, they're already married.

I don't really think many people at all in this thread have expressed much of anything in regards to the gift thing though.

"As far as I'm concerned the depth of one's commitment comes from your heart, not a piece of paper or blessing from the church. What people choose to call each other is no business of mine. "

I agree for the msot part, but at the same time, words have meaning. People seem to want to make up their own meanings. I agree the term is a disconnect from the real commitment someone has. But if that's the case, why are you using words which aren't accurate.

"Honestly, marriage is a legal contract between two people."

No it's not, it's a legal contract between 2 people and the government.

[Firebird]

Would you be opposed to this? Would you still attend and celebrate their commitment? Or would this still leave a bad taste in your mouth?

1) Not really, as long as they're upfront about it not being the legal ceremony; 2) yes of course, and 3) only if they weren't upfront about it not being the legal ceremony.

It's the deception that bothers me. I never said I wouldn't attend a fake wedding, I just would like to know what I'm attending.