To mind that DSS wants to have children so they can go to the wedding?

[snowisfallingallaroundus]

I suddenly feel old and judgy and didn't think I was.

DSS has been with girlfriend for a number of years. Lovely couple. Bought a house together last year and now announcing they are planning to start a family. Great. They then start saying they want a family before having a wedding as it would be more fun for the kids to be in attendance and involved.

I've surprised myself at my reaction. I've said nothing to them (and never would) but in my head I'm going WTF. House, kids then marriage? If marriage is important do it before children. You don't deliberately plan it the other way. Oddly them not getting married but having children didn't elicit any reaction in me.

AIBU? Am I old and out of touch? Is this how things are done now? Any insights into why I'm feeling such a reaction?

My dc came to my wedding. We had a house together and children long before we got married. This was due to me already being legally married to someone else at the time. You would hate me OP.

You don't deliberately plan it the other way.

Except they are.

I do know quite a few younger people who got married post-kids who say they enjoyed their wedding day so much more because their kids were there.

I don’t have a strong opinion either way but do agree that it is odd to plan this on purpose. The majority of people I know who this happened to was the result of unplanned pregnancies happening before marriage rather than planned pregnancies

You might not be old and out of touch, but your views on this particular matter are, I'm afraid.

No, it’s batshit, and they probably won’t bother to get married in fifteen years’ time when the kids are old enough to do a reading, or whatever it is they want them to do.

The only weddings I’ve known with the couple’s own children in attendance have been second marriages. I’ve known a few couples with multi-decade engagements that pre-dated their kids, but none have actually tied the knot.

No point commenting, marriage is obviously not massively important to them and that is fine.

I'd have the same reaction - but only because of the potential legal implications of having children without being married.
Since that doesn't bother you.. yes you are probably out of touch.. ot sure why

AIBU? Am I old and out of touch? Is this how things are done now? Any insights into why I'm feeling such a reaction?

Perfectly legitimate choice. Up to them.

If this is uncharacteristically judgmental of you maybe Covid is getting to you?

None of your business, it’s their lives. It’s good you’re not going to tell them. My mum tries to tell me where lm going “wrong” -and it’s infuriating

I think I would have the same reaction as you OP. But I am also old. For me, it's about being protected financially when one person's career takes a step back due to kids. I'd also wonder if one person isn't properly committed. (I know this is not altogether logical as some people can get married without being committed, other people can be together without being married and are totally committed etc.)

I know what you mean OP. I have friends that did it that way around but they all hoped to be married before having children. That's not to say they didn't love having their kids at their wedding of course!

Of course it's their choice, but it does beg the question of how well they understand what the legal contract of marriage actually is.

The view on MN is typically that women should marry first before having children. Not for religious/pearl clutchy reasons but to afford her some financial security in the event that her earnings drop after having children, she becomes a SAHP, her partner then decides to bail on the relationship, etc.

So from that point of view, one person in your step son's marriage (most likely the woman) is potentially going to leave themselves in a vulnerable position.

I had one child unmarried, planned because my biological clock was ticking. And now we’ve decided we want one more, we kind of are thinking of holding off on the wedding until after having our second (and likely last barring accidents which I can’t see happening at my age). As a second child who has massive differences and unfairnesses between me and my sibling, I want them to be equal. The thought that one had the memories/experience/photographs of being at mummy’s and daddy’s wedding (potentially could be seen as a good thing the second child hasn’t experienced) vs the other being born within wedlock, not having to have their birth re-registered (which the first will have to do), makes me deliberately want to hold off. Sibling equality is much more important in forming a child than people admit, I think, so I’d rather them both be at our wedding (which I think will be lovely) and both be re-registered together.

@snowisfallingallaroundus YANBU at all, but you will get berated on here by some posters for your views. (And even moreso in real life ...)

Having children first, 'so that they can come to our wedding' is batshit.

I also think people should be married before having children. I just do... I am old fashioned, and I don't apologise for it.

I also think it protects all parties (particularly the woman who will need protection more IMO.)

You don't deliberately plan it the other way

Except if you want to. There is no earthly reason why you shouldn't, should you so desire.
Do you really have nothing better to complain about? If you're so desperate to have an aibu you could go read the Daily Mail and find something there.

You would hate me, Op. Our 21 year old came to our wedding 😂

@snowisfallingallaroundus YANBU at all, but you will get berated on here by some posters for your views. (And even moreso in real life ...)

TBF the question is more about why OP is being more judgemental & conservative than normal, than it is about whether she should be judgemental and conservative.

So most of the answers are going to miss the point a bit.

If the desire to have a baby is more of a priority to them than getting married, then that’s absolutely fine by my 21st century book.

It does seem like a particularly superficial reason for doing so though- I’ll grant you that. Kids at weddings are cute, but it’s just one day.

Well the only reason I would want to get married would be before having kids, so I would find it weird, but wouldn't say anything.

I would advise them to both get their wills sorted out though; it's a lot more complicated with inheritance, life insurance and pensions etc if (God forbid) something happens to one of them and they're not married and have no will (see the link below). My friends cousin's partner died suddenly when she was pregnant, and them not being married meant that she didn't inherit his share of their house. If they've got that sorted then up to them when they get married.

www.sillslegal.co.uk/news/2020/09/what-rights-do-cohabiting-couples-have-when-their-partner-dies

I agree. Marriage is supposed to be committing to a life together and honestly, it's kind of hard to take it seriously when the couple have been living together 10 years and have a couple of kids already.

I'd never say this out loud and try to keep my (probably irrational) judgement of others to myself but I have heard this opinion echoed quite often when the wedding invites go out.

It's a strangely strong reaction.

I wouldn't have kids outside marriage if I was your (common law) SDIL, but that is up to her

Perfectly normal to have children then marry later but they’re in for a rude awakening unless they have the most casual wedding ever. Enough going on without kids to worry about entertaining (or using as cute props?).

And more fool your future DIL having children without the financial protection of marriage unless she is financially stronger.

No issues with having children before marriage, but agree that it seems very weird to me to consciously make that decision just so the not-yet-existing children can be at the wedding.

@KillerFlamingo

I agree. Marriage is supposed to be committing to a life together and honestly, it's kind of hard to take it seriously when the couple have been living together 10 years and have a couple of kids already.

I'd never say this out loud and try to keep my (probably irrational) judgement of others to myself but I have heard this opinion echoed quite often when the wedding invites go out.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Why would you doubt the commitment of a couple getting married who've been together a decade raising kids - that's very strong evidence of commitment to each other and their children.

I don’t think OP objects to having children out of wedlock per se, more that she finds it odd that they’d make that decision solely because they want their kids to be at their wedding. Apologies if I’ve got that wrong!