A PP, too long to quote, from a few pages back. This is the first half of it.
I think you're being given a hard time here, but then again, this is MN, where MIL's are the spawn of the devil.
I'd bet my hat, that not one of the keyboard warrier's on this thread would take their kids to Ukraine tomorrow. And furthermore, if they had adult DC who said they were going, they would urge them not to.
Not inviting parents to a wedding is unforgivable, barring an abusive upbringing.
The first of these three comments is merely childish. I've read plenty of threads on MN on which mothers-in-law have been supported. It also needs to be borne in mind that the usual 'we don't know what we've done' schtick is wearing thin by now. People generally know; the question of whether to remain in denial is the problem many of them are addressing. In doing so, they're often seeking affirmation of their own position and are rarely open to considering the alternative. Added to this is a further problem: a breakdown of relations between families is always the daughters-in-laws' fault. A woman is to blame, despite the fact that men are not so easily brainwashed and sons have autonomy over their own decisions. And even this underlying misogyny can be revealing of why the relationship broke down in the first place.
The 'hating all MiLs' protestations, as above, tend to come from those who are quite rigid in their thinking and unwilling to examine these issues. This point is a nice segue into the statement that 'not inviting parents to a wedding is unforgiveable'. This is a precise example of the kind of attitude I'm talking about. An issue as trivial as a wedding almost never falls into the category of 'unforgivable'. They are not important enough to justify the amount of angst they cause within families, and the statement made by the PP clearly indicates that their offspring should have the style of wedding they deem appropriate: the identikit, stickler-for-tradition, greatly expensive brand of wedding that's become a form of social expectation.
For what? Some couples might prefer to save their money for something less ephemeral and more meaningful. Others prefer something smaller, less conventional and less tedious. For some couples, a big event might be the stuff of nightmares and still others might be trying to navigate difficult family situations to avoid having the whole shebang ruined. In all scenarios, does this really justify an insurmountable family division? I'd say not.
This particular post also made reference to 'abuse' being the only scenario that lets these adult offspring off the hook. This is taking quite a lot upon yourself in judging what other adults are and are not allowed to do at their own family event. Some forms of abuse are subtle. You don't get to qualify that definition on behalf of other people.
This site is desperately in need of more nuance.