Big wedding when you're already married

[imawino]

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?

Dunno. Hassle? Because they have families that will be a pain in the ass about how and when and whatever else about their wedding? Because maybe in their state common-law is recognized so they don't "need" to get legally married and they don't care about the religious ceremony part. It's kinda like asking why people get married if they don't really legally have to. Everyone has their own reasons for things. The only relationships that are my business are the ones I'm in. Which is totally not to say that I won't gossip about ones that aren't my business - I just realize that my opinion doesn't matter.

[hoops902]

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

I wish to consider myself the President of the United States. Just because I wish it doesn't make it an accurate statement.

[justme]

I would think it would be way more of a hassle to prove a common law marriage than to simply spend 15mins with a justice of the peace or whatever is required by your state to become married.

[zibazinski]

Oh, Hoops, if only you were.

[midjd]

Hoops, I have been agreeing with you an awful lot lately...

[weltschmerz]

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.
----------------------
Sure you can pick and choose.

Common-law marriages

Two people may also form a common-law marriage, also referred to as "free union", meaning they live together without being married. Common-law marriages are recognized regardless of the sex of the partners involved. The Civil Code of Québec does not confer any particular status on common-law couples. By signing a cohabitation contract, preferably before a notary or lawyer, common-law partners may obtain certain guarantees offered by marriage. This legal document sets out the conditions that they agree to respect. Any children born of such a union are protected by law and entitled to the same rights as those of children born to a married couple.

In case of death, the surviving spouse is not considered the legal heir. It is strongly recommended that common-law spouses who wish to bequeath their goods to one another prepare a notarized will. The surviving spouse may also receive life insurance benefits only if he or she has been designated as the beneficiary by the deceased spouse.
www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/choose-quebec/daily-life/family/marriage.html

[thyme4change]

I knew a lady that wouldn't marry her boyfriend because she had two failed marriages. She thought if they got married, the relationship would deteriorate. They were together nearly 25 years when she died. So, she was a superstitious weirdo.

[Firebird]

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.

Exactly - and as Hoops said, you were using the fact that it meant something to them to justify lying to them and making them think they were witnessing something that they weren't.

I'm not trying to pick on you - but you used your own wedding as an example and it's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that I PERSONALLY would feel very deceived and upset. I still would have gone to your "wedding" and celebrated with you, but I would have liked to know that you were already legally married. That part would have mattered to me. You've acknowledged that it would have mattered to a lot of your guests who may not have come if they had known it wasn't that.

IMO, the risk of them not coming is part of the price you pay for being married before the wedding. And not telling them that you're married to avoid that risk is exactly the kind of deception that I'm saying would be so hurtful if it were the wedding of someone who mattered to me.

[Deleted]

DH said he knew very early in our relationship that he wanted to spend his life with me, but he also wanted kids and I was not about to be relegated to the status of "baby mama".

[thyme4change]

I would think it would be way more of a hassle to prove a common law marriage than to simply spend 15mins with a justice of the peace or whatever is required by your state to become married.

Maybe it is a 60's rebellion against the establishment thing. Why does the government get to tell us who is and who isn't married? Plus - marriage licenses - that's how they track you .

[midjd]

Sure you can pick and choose.

Common-law marriages

Two people may also form a common-law marriage, also referred to as "free union", meaning they live together without being married. Common-law marriages are recognized regardless of the sex of the partners involved. The Civil Code of Québec does not confer any particular status on common-law couples. By signing a cohabitation contract, preferably before a notary or lawyer, common-law partners may obtain certain guarantees offered by marriage. This legal document sets out the conditions that they agree to respect. Any children born of such a union are protected by law and entitled to the same rights as those of children born to a married couple.

In case of death, the surviving spouse is not considered the legal heir. It is strongly recommended that common-law spouses who wish to bequeath their goods to one another prepare a notarized will. The surviving spouse may also receive life insurance benefits only if he or she has been designated as the beneficiary by the deceased spouse.

Again, the people I'm discussing are not in Canada. It works differently here (and my state abolished common law marriage a while ago).

I'm generally a very live-and-let-live person, and I agree that others' relationships are none of my business, but I'm with FB - I just want people to be honest with me. Holding someone out as your legal husband or wife when you refuse to marry them is not being honest. Marrying in secret and pretending your second ceremony is the real thing is not being honest. Do whatever you want, just don't pretend to the world it's something else.

ETA - I agree with Angel below that the government needs to get out of marriage - leave marriage for the religious folks and the rest of us can have civil unions, or whatever - but until then, the words "husband" and "wife" do have specific legal meaning.

[CarolinaKat]

Apr 23, 2012 14:46:17 GMT -5 Firebird said:

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.

To the (imaginary) couple I was referring to (the religious ones) it's not a 'fake wedding' it's a religious one. Which will then make them feel emotionally married to each other, or whole, or properly married. Calling it a fake wedding would be very hurtful to them.

[justme]

Apr 23, 2012 14:50:12 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I would think it would be way more of a hassle to prove a common law marriage than to simply spend 15mins with a justice of the peace or whatever is required by your state to become married.

Maybe it is a 60's rebellion against the establishment thing. Why does the government get to tell us who is and who isn't married? Plus - marriage licenses - that's how they track you .

I would assume it's to keep someone from going to the courts and saying "I have a common law marriage with that rich guy, gimme half his money since I want a divorce!" Establishing specific criteria keeps people from doing that.

[Angel!]

Apr 23, 2012 14:47:17 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

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

I wish to consider myself the President of the United States. Just because I wish it doesn't make it an accurate statement.

I guess the problem is that some of us see the legal paperwork & the commitment as 2 different things. If a couple considers themselves committed enough to call each other husband & wife, then why is it any of my business if they have signed a piece of paper telling the govt. this?

The problem is the govt. needs to get out of marriage. I don't know how, but they need to. I wouldn't have gotten married when I did if I didn't need the govt. to consider me married. I wanted the real wedding & to present our commitment to the world when we were ready to marry. I didn't want to have to explain to people we got married simply for the benefits 5 yrs earlier & then have people calling what to me was a real wedding our "fake" wedding. No point in really having a wedding at all if the guests are going to make sure to point out it is just a "fake" wedding.

[Firebird]

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

Again, if you needed other people to know it was your real wedding, then my solution would have been to invite them to your elopement or whenever you did the legal ceremony. But that's just me. Again, I am not trying to pick on you and again, my opinion doesn't matter. How other people choose to consider their marriage vows and what kind of weight they give it is really none of my business.

But being invited to someone's wedding, to me, is like saying "We really want you here with us to celebrate the BEGINNING of the next stage in our relationship, our marriage. It's important to us that you be there for that because we care about you."

So finding out (or knowing) that what I was witnessing wasn't actually the start of their marriage would bother me. And I would be upset if I knew they were lying about it. That's all there is to it.

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?

Yes. I'm totally calling DH my Schmoopy from now on.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Apr 23, 2012 14:55:07 GMT -5 Firebird said:

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?

Yes. I'm totally calling DH my Schmoopy from now on.

I'm having Monsters, Inc. moments here and trying not to giggle like a loon.

[thyme4change]

I still think that the government should change marriage to be a legal interaction, with a signed contract. The contract needs to include certain standard things - like agreeing to all the benefits of marriage (default power of attorney, default heir, etc.) and essentially, a pre-nup. Granted the pre-nup would be boiler plate to go with standard divorce laws, or you could pay a couple of lawyers to renegotiate. But, then it would occur to people what the hell they are actually doing!

[Deleted]

"if you needed other people to know it was your real wedding, then my solution would have been to invite them to your elopement or whenever you did the legal ceremony."

You aren't hearing her... that was not her 'real' wedding. That was necessary paperwork to secure benefits. Her real wedding was when she stood up in front of family and friends and repeated vows ... etc.

[weltschmerz]

I guess the problem is that some of us see the legal paperwork & the commitment as 2 different things. If a couple considers themselves committed enough to call each other husband & wife, then why is it any of my business if they have signed a piece of paper telling the govt. this?
---------------------

[Deleted]

My sister and brother-in-law in Seattle were able to take each others benefits, etc. as soon as they moved in together... that helps.

[weltschmerz]

Again, the people I'm discussing are not in Canada. It works differently here (and my state abolished common law marriage a while ago).
------------------------
So what are gays who live in state that doesn't recognise gay marriage supposed to do? Just call each other room mates? Like I said, commitment comes from deep in the heart, not a bit of paper. If they want to refer to each other as spouses, I don't find it dishonest.

[Firebird]

To the (imaginary) couple I was referring to (the religious ones) it's not a 'fake wedding' it's a religious one. Which will then make them feel emotionally married to each other, or whole, or properly married. Calling it a fake wedding would be very hurtful to them.

Well, first of all I wouldn't call it a fake wedding to their faces. But to me, that's what it would be because a wedding to ME, again, is witnessing the genesis of someone's marriage. If they consider their religious wedding the genesis of their marriage, fine, but legally their marriage has already begun and I wasn't there to see it.

I have a Catholic friend, and she told me about a couple in her pre-cana class that said they were only getting married in the Church to appease their parents. Assuming that was true and they didn't consider their marriage to be a religious union, you could easily make a case for their Catholic wedding ceremony not being the "real" wedding. Yet in the eyes of the Church, if they do the ceremony in the Church they are married.

I would consider it deceitful if they had that Church ceremony, referred to themselves as married to all their Catholic friends, and didn't tie the knot legally until a year later. When you say you're married, to me that means you are legally married, not that you had a pretty ceremony.

[hoops902]

"You aren't hearing her... that was not her 'real' wedding. That was necessary paperwork to secure benefits. Her real wedding was when she stood up in front of family and friends and repeated vows ... etc."

Your real wedding is when you get married, that's the definition of what a wedding is. They were married after that first "event". Making up your own definitions of things in order to justify lying to people doesn't make it any less of a lie.

[midjd]

So what are gays who live in state that doesn't recognise gay marriage supposed to do? Just call each other room mates? Like I said, commitment comes from deep in the heart, not a bit of paper. If they want to refer to each other as spouses, I don't find it dishonest.

I said twice that I was deliberately NOT referring to gays who are legally unable to marry - just people who are legally able to marry and choose not to.

[justme]

Apr 23, 2012 14:57:30 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I still think that the government should change marriage to be a legal interaction, with a signed contract. The contract needs to include certain standard things - like agreeing to all the benefits of marriage (default power of attorney, default heir, etc.) and essentially, a pre-nup. Granted the pre-nup would be boiler plate to go with standard divorce laws, or you could pay a couple of lawyers to renegotiate. But, then it would occur to people what the hell they are actually doing!

It's not a legal interaction? Or should the contract just be added to the legal interaction?

[Wisconsin Beth]

Apr 23, 2012 14:52:05 GMT -5 CarolinaKat said:

To the (imaginary) couple I was referring to (the religious ones) it's not a 'fake wedding' it's a religious one. Which will then make them feel emotionally married to each other, or whole, or properly married. Calling it a fake wedding would be very hurtful to them.

The religious folk I know don't do that though. They wait and do the legal and religious ceremony at the same time. OR they do the JOP and then have a vow renewal type ceremony in the church. But they've distinguished between the 2.

I don't much care what you do but don't tell me it's a wedding when you're celebrating your anniversary date x amount of time earlier. I can barely keep my own anniversary date straight, don't give me 2 to remember for you.

*-*-*
I cannot see a good outcome from FireBird's friends. The parents who are paying are not going to be happy and if the couple can't keep their mouths shut, there's no way the parents won't hear about it.

[weltschmerz]

Well, first of all I wouldn't call it a fake wedding to their faces. But to me, that's what it would be because a wedding to ME, again, is witnessing the genesis of someone's marriage. If they consider their religious wedding the genesis of their marriage, fine, but legally their marriage has already begun and I wasn't there to see it.
----------------------
You want to be there to witness the consumation as well?
Seems like much ado about nothing.

[Firebird]

I wanted the real wedding & to present our commitment to the world when we were ready to marry. I didn't want to have to explain to people we got married simply for the benefits 5 yrs earlier & then have people calling what to me was a real wedding our "fake" wedding. No point in really having a wedding at all if the guests are going to make sure to point out it is just a "fake" wedding.

Again, I wouldn't call it a fake wedding to your face. I certainly don't plan to snarkily refer to this wedding as a fake wedding when we go or make air quotes as they say their vows. I'll go and act like it's a real wedding, and celebrate with them as if it were their first one.

But again, even if you "just" got married for the benefits, then you were married five years ago - to ME. And if you knew that was how your guests would feel, and you chose not to tell them because you didn't want them to feel that way and potentially not attend your wedding, do I consider that deceitful? Honestly, yes.

[thyme4change]

It should be treated as more of a legal interaction - which it is, but it doesn't feel that way. It feels like a romantic Disney princess story - which, marriage is not.

[Deleted]

So glad I don't believe in wedding ceremonies and didn't invite anoyone but parents to the JP... too many people thinking they can tell you exactly what is real and true about how you decide to celebrate your own union... is there such as thing as a Guestzilla ??