Wedding without marriage

[DelythBeautyQueen]

My cousin who lives in North East England was supposed to be getting married next month.

Attending won't be cheap, but we were looking forward to celebrating Anna's and James' special day.

They will have all the trappings of an extravagant wedding. They are not wealthy and have taken out a large loan to pay for for it.

The bride and groom asked guests to give them money for their honeymoon in the Caribbean instead of gifts. We were happy to do that and sent them £300 a few weeks ago.

They originally intended to have the legal marriage ceremony in their local registry office a day or two before the wedding celebration and a non-legal humanist ceremony on the day. I know this is a fairly common thing nowadays and had no problem with it.

I found out last night Anna and James have decided to have the legal ceremony while on honeymoon, not before the "wedding". I wouldn't see this as too much of a problem if they were going straight on honeymoon from the wedding, but they are not.

It turns out that they haven't even booked the honeymoon yet and intend to go "sometime next year".

The "wedding" next month will go ahead exactly as planned. The bride and groom do not intend to tell guests that they won't actually be married. The only reason I know is because my aunt is very upset and told her sister (my mum).

I know that a few members of the family are stretching financially to attend this "wedding" for a couple that will not be married at the end of it and probably won't be married for as much as 18 months after it.

Am I being unreasonable for being angry about this. That we have been deceived into attending a sham wedding?

True, but those people weren't choosing between legally wedding and publicly committing, and specifically choosing the latter over the former.

It makes me wonder if anything would be different if 'informal weddings' were more common with everyone, actually! Less money going to divorce lawyers!? More people thinking about what they actually wanted to agree to and drawing up bespoke contracts?! I guess the equivalent still sort of is 'an engagement party'.

I mean, you even put marriages in speech marks yourself. So you know it isnt the same thing.

Marriage is a legal ceremony, not a show of a loving relationship.

if a ‘wedding’ is the same as a wedding, there would have been no need to fight for equal rights.

if ‘wedding’ is indeed the same as a wedding as you believe, why fight for equal rights in marriage? What is the difference?

Of course I know it isn’t the same in the legal sense, that’s why I said No, they weren’t ‘marriages’ in the legal sense… what an odd thing to try and ‘gotcha!’ me with.

My point is that if it was only about the legal bit, why would people have bothered to do it since we couldn’t have the legal bit?

The fight for equal legal marriage rights WAS NOT because we felt our relationships were less valid, loving, committed or real than straight people's just because we didn’t have a legal contract- we always know they were- it was about other people recognising that and affording us the same civil rights as everyone else.

“Pretend marriage”?! Wow.

Don't send the gift until the evening next time! Then you could have given it when they got married. It's basically a glorified party and holiday

@TheBottomsOfMyTrousersAreRolled actually I agree. If there's no legal side to it, it is a pretend marriage at best. Marriage is a legal contract not a show of love.

It's lovely to have a ceremony, but that's not to show people you are together to receive the same civil rights @BillyWhitney. That's not a thing. People you know treat you the same regardless as to whether you are married or not.

A marriage is a legal ceremony to enter a legal contract. We just like to make them pretty and fancy so they are enjoyable for everyone.

Marriage is a legal contract. That's a fact.

However, when people attend weddings I doubt many have in mind "This will be useful for avoiding inheritance tax" or "He could get half her house if they divorce".

Most people are celebrating the public demonstration of love and commitment and their desire to be a unit.

I attended may humanist ceremonies between gay and lesbian friends before civil partnerships and same sex marriage became legal, and the point of public vows of love and commitment was important and moving. They had no chance of the legal protections or liabilities , and no one dissed their ceremony as meaningless - even though it had no legal basis.

Exactly.

Yes marriage is a legal thing, but it isn’t ONLY a legal thing- otherwise you would have mates getting married in order to have favourable tax, pension and inheritance rights.

The love, commitment and attraction to each other are fundamental to the relationship (even if it doesn’t last).

When someone’s husband cheats on them are they upset ONLY because they will loose pension rights if they divorce? Or are they upset because someone they trusted and built a life with has betrayed them?

It's lovely to have a ceremony, but that's not to show people you are together to receive the same civil rights @BillyWhitney. That's not a thing

I don’t understand this.

People you know treat you the same regardless as to whether you are married or not.

They actually don’t- every bugger seemed to have an opinion one way or another on my marriage- people refused to come, people said it wasn’t real because it isn’t biblical, people said we had sold out to heteronormative beliefs etc etc. I’m still (a decade on) regularly asked about it, especially by straight people.

But @BillyWhitney you are missing the point.... the ops invite was to a legal ceremony. After people gave their gifts they changed what was happening.... I wouldn't be happy either.

As for people questioning you... that's strange. I was never questioned or sad comments before or after marriage. Maybe it's the company you keep.

The part of my post you said you didn't understand.... you said the event without the legal part was so your friends etc treated you with the same civil rights. I literally have never heard of something like this.

@BoudiccaOfSuburbia They had no chance of the legal protections or liabilities , and no one dissed their ceremony as meaningless - even though it had no legal basis.

Yes, because they had no chance of the legal protections or liabilities, as you said. Therefore it would have been awful to dismiss their ceremony as meaningless (although I suspect you're not correct when you say no one did, I'm sure some people did, incorrectly). That's the difference. People seem to be trying to paint OP as a homophobe, when the situation she refers to is completely different as the couple have freedom to legally marry, and indeed told their guests that was what they were doing.

So they are having a scam wedding to get a holiday basically

I wasn’t responding to the op, I was responding directly to another poster who said that ceremonies and what they represent is meaningless without the legal section.

The op’s situation is different, and is odd (although personally I wouldn’t get upset about it - but I love weddings/parties and am happy for any excuse!).

Maybe it's the company you keep.

??? People? Lots of different ones, like most people.

The part of my post you said you didn't understand.... you said the event without the legal part was so your friends etc treated you with the same civil rights. I literally have never heard of something like this.

No I didn’t. That would be silly.

No one has referred to the OP as a homophobe- her situation is unusual to say the least (and doesn’t seem to involve a gay couple anyway)…

the only homophobia has been from a different poster who was generalising about all non legal ceremonies and relationships being pretend- so all the humanist ceremonies as well as all faith ceremonies etc.

That is no more acceptable than a religious person coming along to say all hotel/registry/different faith marriages are pretend because they aren’t sanctified by the posters particular God.

Obviously some have legal standing and some don’t- everyone is aware of that- but that isn’t the whole of what a marriage is.

The wording was "it was about other people recognising that and affording us the same civil rights as everyone else."

"It" being the fight for equal marriage, not the ceremonies.

A mis-reading, surely. (Sorry, I'm not replying directly to the quoted post, just trying to point out where the misunderstanding arose)

So it seems

The "tell" is not having informed people until they'd accepted the invitation/sent the gifts, but then if they'd been clear before they may not have got as much (which could explain a lot)

If you are having a ceremony that isnt a legal ceremony then it isnt a marriage ceremony.

marriage comes with legal protections and legal rights.

that is the truth if it.

have any kind of event you like, but it isnt a legal marriage without the legal bit.

dont be conned into thinking it is.

absolutely appalling @mnhq deleted that. It is crucial women stop working and having babies with men they are not married to while thinking living together means anything in a legal sense.

Saying gay relationships are lesser (the word used was ‘pretend’) because they were denied the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is not ok.

That is not remotely the same as saying women should know that legal marriage gives them legal protections that they otherwise have.

One is common sense, the other is homophobia.

Yes, they are. I don't understand why the OP has already sent them the money. I would wait until the wedding itself to donate. Weddings get cancelled.

Declaring your relationship publicly did not give gay couples equal marriage rights, which is why equal marriage rights was absolutely crucial. Declaring your love publicly for anyone is not the same as a marriage. Because of those legal rights. It isnt a legal marriage. Accepting a wedding without legal rights does not lead to equality. Fighting for marriage equality did.

Accepting a wedding without legal rights does not lead to equality. Fighting for marriage equality did

No one is denying that, I don’t know why you keep repeating it.

Stop the press! Non legal marriages aren’t legal!

That still doesn’t justify characterising gay relationships as “pretend” because they had a ceremony that was meaningful to them but not legal.

Neither does having such a ceremony preclude fighting for equal marriage rights- do you think gay couples who had some kind of relationship blessing then lost interest in actually getting married? What about people who had civil partnerships? Did we all decide a second class ‘marriage’ was good enough for us? Some did obviously, just as some straight couples have handfastings or don’t ever marry or whatever- but a massive number continued to fight for equality whilst in their “pretend” marriages… as you would expect really.

@BillyWhitney I saw @TheBottomsOfMyTrousersAreRolled 's post before it was deleted and you've either misinterpreted it or are trying to stir up outrage. She didn't say gay relationships were 'pretend relationships', but that non-legal weddings are 'pretend marriages'. It sounds like what you're referring to would be more like commitment ceremonies. Thank goodness those days are behind us and everyone in the UK has the right to marry.

I neither misunderstood nor am I interested in stirring up outrage.

The fact that commitment ceremonies were/are not legal marriages is not open to interpretation- they aren’t.

The fact that there are other facets to a ‘marriage’ is also true- there are elements of love, commitment, friendship, teamwork, parenting, mutual support and respect etc- and they all exist in the same way in gay relationships or faith marriages as they do in legal marriages.

One is more legal than the other- but non of them are pretend.

If you care to check my first post simply said that some thinking was reductionist- which reducing entire relationships to nothing but a marriage certificate is.

Err except they can change there minds pocket the money and be gone lol