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.
There's a bunch of deleted posts. The OP was a question of etiquette that turned religio-political. I close the discussion when I get concerned newbies will post and think they can skirt the rules about the main forum.
Men will turn anything into politics. Women will turn anything into fashion. Or so it's appearing. These conversations never turn political on the women's forums, which is why I started this on the main AoM forum. Though I'll shut it down if I feel it's necessary.
I'm not interested in debating civil gay marriage. Not on AoM, not anywhere. I AM interested in each person having a clear understanding of what marriage means to them. For me, it is primarily a sacrament, but it is also a "bundle of (civil) rights" (what I'm calling "1,000 protections" here). The question is whether a ceremony celebrating just the sacrament, without "automatically getting" the 1,000 protections is "fake" and offensive.
I think Americans would be more likely to understand these distinctions if we followed the procedures of Charles, Camilla, Albert, and what's-her-name, rather than John Muir (not that I blame him). But there's apparently a lot of women who thoroughly don't like the idea.
But why? Dont you have a sense of fairness? Arent you concerned about your fellow man? I realize, its tough to see the reality of some folks lives, but dont we, as americans, as the beneficiaries of the greatest liberal democracy (actually republic) want to see a fulfillment of those dreams. What would have happened if men's ears had been cold to the dreams and demand of the womans sufferage movement! Dont you feel the need to carry the torch? Even as you watch women suffer in other nations, the glass ceiling women face today? the war on your reproductive rights? How you can you turn your back on me when your not entirely safe in your freedom either?
There are those in this country that espouse the belief in the same god and bible as you, but yet, would take away your rigtht to vote, take away your right to choose your marriage partner, take away your rights to your body. How can you espouse the same line as your oppressors. Think, question, challenge. Do whats right.
damn, youve lost and now your giving up.
Oh, hey buddy, I dont want you to screw up again on American History. I totally made up the whole thing about jesus giving G.Washington the constitution on Mt. Vernon on the 4th of July. Sorry, I shouldnt have taken advantage of you, but I thought it was funny- and was making a point- but, please, dont repeat it, cause, its well, I know to you it sounded goodk, but its not true. Ok. sorry big kilt wearing hot fella.
Bear, I'm not interested in the debate because I don't think people are ready for it, as I suggested. I'm also not very interested in politics in general, and that would have been true were I born 100 years earlier or 100 years earlier and in Europe.
As for my "reproductive rights," I should be deeply offended that you presume to know anything about what I believe on those issues. Instead, I just laughed. Anyway, you're presuming wrong.
I presume you felt that a woman knows her body best and as an adult can make her own decisions, rather than having faith based laws restrict a womans right to make up her own mind. Thats all. Its sorta 21st century thinking. I fully agree that there are women who have been made to feel they dont deserve this autonomy nor is their sex capable of making such decisions. I apologize if I mistakenly assumed you as the previous, but since your on-line, writing and sharing your opinions, I naturally assumed.
was curious if anyone else recoiled at your "not ready for it" discussion. apparently not. Sorry Jew, were just not ready to discuss your equality. Sorry Negro, we just not ready to discuss your equality. Sorry Woman, we just not ready to discuss your equality. Do you read what you post? is this really who you are?
If you think everyone who supports a change in the Family Codes should make that their life's focus, those arguments belong in TGD. I'm asking a question of etiquette.
I would have loved to be there, were you in a kilt? I love a man in a kilt.
I'm just not sure what the point is. If you want a private ceremony, you have one and then have a newlyweds reception that's open to your larger circle of family and friends. If you're marrying someone of another religion, it's fairly easy to have an interfaith ceremony.
In the case of royal family members, I'd imagine a lot of that is because their weddings are affairs of state as much as they are personal events. And it's fairly common for Europeans to be atheists in practice but be "cultural" Christians (especially Catholics); a civil ceremony and a separate religious one would be a way to accommodate that.
It can be harder than you think to have an interfaith ceremony. A lot of religions, and a lot of religious ministers, won't "blend" "traditions."
As for the Europeans, there, the Catholic Church requires it, or a blend of state and church law requires it. It's actually rather strange that our American religious ministers, who serve no other government function, can sign these licenses that affect more legal changes than, say, driver's licenses or wills. In other nations, the religious ministers either can't under state law, or won't.