Offended to attend a "fake" wedding?
Does it, or would it, offend you to be invited/attend a marriage ceremony that was not recognized by the civil government because a civil marriage ceremony had taken place earlier, or was scheduled for later, or the marriage was of a kind not allowed under that state's laws?
The wedding-planning forums, the closest thing to "AoM for women" out there, see this as strictly an etiquette issue. The "real wedding" is whatever is recognized by the state government, anything else, such as a separate religious ceremony or a second ceremony so both the bride's and groom's family traditions are entirely celebrated, is a "fake wedding" and a "pretty princess day," and offensive. Such "fake weddings" are only OK if the couple tells all their guests (I guess in the invitations) that they are being invited to a "fake wedding." Then the guests can be offended and refuse to come.
My understanding is such "fake weddings" are common in Europe. The Prince and Princess of Monaco followed this procedure. They had a small civil ceremony with a very large Nuptial Mass the next day. Some friends of mine who got married in Austria, or who got married at the courthouse in Arizona and then got married at a large Nuptial Mass in Austria, also did this. Prince Charles and Camilla did something similar with a civil marriage followed by a religious blessing.
And various ordinary Americans do it because their weddings are abroad in countries with residency requirements, or their choice of officiant isn't qualified under their state's laws, or the marriage is a kind not allowed under that state's laws.
I'm wondering if "people" are really offended by the idea, or if it's just a certain set of women.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by NYGayBear on
-
Thats what you gotta love about religion! I was just talking to a friend about that the other day. Two men are getting married in NYC. The Rabbi wont attend unless there is a huppa (sp?). The Episcopal priest wont attend unless its in his Church. So, they are doing a christian wedding at the church and doing a jewish ceremony at the reception hall! HAHA! Weve come a long way, baby!
-
Permalink Reply by Rebekah on -
Chet-vav-phe-hey; chupah is more common.
Your friends need to meet these harpies who insist they'd walk out if asked to attend a second ceremony. I don't think they really would, but this is women's equivalent to not making friends with anyone who wears black shoes with a brown suit. AoM can get awful huffy about those issues (not so much lately, though, thank goodness). I'm testing whether men can get huffy about these wedding issues.
-
-
Thanks for the correction on Chupah. I feel the whole bride thing has been whipped up to crazyness. The Bridzilla shows on TV are an example. Its almost become "princess for a day". Again, I would advocate a returning to the fact its two people, in love, wanting to share their personal committment to their friends and family. In the Catholic church, there are two of the 7 sacraments you bestow on another, and you do NOT require a priest- marriage and baptism. So, if you go to the root of this actually relatively new custom for mankind, the earliest examples are about the two folks getting married- thats it....like RuPaul says- your born naked and the rest is drag!
-
Permalink Reply by ARK on -
I tend to think someone who's marrying a person outside of their religion probably shouldn't be making strict adherence to sacraments into a deal-breaker for the wedding. If you took your religion that seriously, there wouldn't be an interfaith wedding to begin with.
-
Permalink Reply by Rebekah on
-
If you're going to adhere strictly, there won't be an interfaith, as in blended, ceremony. There will be a ceremony that is all one or the other, or a ceremony that is neither, or there will be multiple ceremonies.
I guess you're saying you object to the marriage of 2 people whose faiths will not allow a blended ceremony, resulting in 2 ceremonies? Do you object to the point that you find being invited to the second wedding offensive?
"Strict adherence" was a dealbreaker for me, and I said as much before we became engaged, and so we're barely blending.
-
Permalink Reply by ARK on
-
I wouldn't be offended by being invited to the second wedding. I'd find the second wedding completely pointless.
I will clarify my statement: If you're going to strictly adhere to your religious beliefs, there won't be an interfaith ceremony because you wouldn't be marrying someone who wasn't a member of your religion.
For example, if you consider yourself a good Catholic, you accept that you are a member of the one true apostolic Church that has existed since the time of the Apostles. Anyone who is not a member of the one true Church is a member of a false church. You should not be marrying that person to begin with unless they agree to become a Catholic beforehand. If you're someone who feels they can balance being a Catholic with accepting your fiancee's differing beliefs, that's fine. But you shouldn't feel entitled to a traditional ceremony if you refuse to abide by your faith's traditions.
-
Permalink Reply by Nick H on -
The cultural Christian is common in Canada too where you'll see people living together and then having a church wedding for their parents' sake.
As for the royals. I think you got it right. Just as a Christian has two services (sometimes together), one for the state, one for God. The royals need to have a third, one for their people for which they are the sovereign. Hence, it makes sense that they will have a big public "wedding" that may or may not be separate from the other official wedding ceremonies.
-
Permalink Reply by JonEdanger on -
My apologies, Rebekah, for my participation in highjacking your thread. I'll delete my comments.
-
-
Censorship. thats the answer. anything you dont like, or things that question your beliefs..........erase it, delete it, forbid it. Expected and typical of your kind.
-
Permalink Reply by Rebekah on
-
self-censorship is a habit almost everyone could improve in ourselves. For the record, I didn't ask Danger to delete anything.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on -
Censorship. thats the answer. anything you dont like, or things that question your beliefs..........erase it, delete it, forbid it. Expected and typical of your kind.
The answer is clearly filibustering a question about wedding etiquette. Anything you don't like, or things that question your beliefs ... piss and moan and insult and condescend. Expected and typical of your kind.
JB
-
Permalink Reply by Alex on
-
I don't know if it's because you're a homosexual and feel the need to make everything about your "struggle" for equality, but it's starting to get pretty old in a thread that had nothing to do with LGBT rights in the first place.
You should learn when to throttle back, IMO.
Latest Activity
Aaron Lancaster replied to Victor E. Franklin's discussion Life crisis/disillusionment/whatever"Go bush. Here's a few wise words from James Elroy Flecker
Go as a pilgrim and seek out danger
Far from the well lit avenues of life.
Pit your soul against the very unknown,
And seek stimulation in the company of the brave.
Experience…"
Aaron Lancaster replied to Christian's discussion Favorite Manly Poems"How did this get this far without James Elroy Flecker
Go as a pilgrim and seek out danger
Far from the well lit avenues of life.
Pit your soul against the very unknown,
And seek stimulation in the company of the brave.
Experience cold and…"
Jay Moore replied to Jay Moore's discussion Dealing with an ex post break up"I have no idea what you're saying here.
"
Brian W. Barrett replied to Jay Moore's discussion Dealing with an ex post break up"This is a Mars/Venus problem. She wants to "help you" by talking about your feelings. You want to fix the problem. . . your feelings. Her talking with you about your feelings helps her. . . but tortures you and doesn't fix getting…"
Daniel replied to Herb Munson's discussion The Primacy and Existence of God in the group The Great Debate"Obnoxious meme gets obnoxious response.
Touche to Herb for one-upping my cynicism with morbidly weird religious... optimism? I don't even know."
Michael replied to LShieldes's discussion Scandal run down in the group The Great Debate"Ethical Review of some of the Scandals
Why it matters on a broad scale
Several other pertinent articles can be found."
© 2013 Created by Brett McKay.
Powered by
