|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Do lavish weddings put couples at risk of early divorce?
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
This discussion has proved very, very interesting on a number of levels, at least from my POV.
In the nether regions of The Ship, there is yet another "All lawyers are scumbags" thread, even though many on the thread acknowledge that for the most part, lawyers are acting on the requests of their clients.
On this thread, it appears exactly the opposite; some appear to believe that clergy bear no responsibility for their involvement in what may well be a disasterous decision by couples who are perhaps at a vulnerable stage int their relationship.
So, lawyers are scumbags for following their clients' wishes; clergy have no business (even in pre-maritial counselling) discussing the longterm ramifications of the couple's wishes.
Interesting, innit?
[misplaced a freakin' apostrophe!]
[ 10. March 2010, 12:41: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
I'm getting married later this year, and I'd have been happy with a bring and share meal in the church hall or a BBQ outside for the reception, then staying in a cottage in England for the honeymoon.
quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
The Mister and I get married in three weeks. By default of that fact that I have a stupidly big family it will be a large wedding by most people's standards. However, we are having afternoon tea instead of a sit down meal and we have managed to get lots of people to do things for us, ie. flowers, videoing the service etc. Our honeymoon is in a cottage in the UK where I am sure we will have a lovely time. The thought of travelling for hours and hours is not appealing.
I got married last summer, and this is very similar to the approach my wife and I took - lots of people to the wedding, but cheap and cheerful in how we did things.
My mother-in-law made the wedding dress, my mum baked the wedding cake, a lady from church iced and decorated it, someone made the wedding invitations as her wedding present to us, the church music group played at the wedding, and so on. We had the reception in our church, with a buffet put on by the church - very nice food at low cost - and with extra puddings and desserts provided by some of our friends. Some things we got professionally, such as flowers and bridesmaids dresses. The cost was still a fair chunk of money, but small change compared to the supposed average wedding, which is apparently close to £20,000!
As well as being much, much cheaper, having so many of our friends, relatives and fellow church-members involved in the practicalities of the event gave it a really nice community feel, with loads and loads of good-will.
My wife and I are really grateful we were blessed with so many talented and generous people who were able and willing to do the catering, photography, music and so on. The support of friends and community has made such a difference not just to the wedding, but in settling into married life since then.
I don't know whether lavish weddings put couples at more risk of divorce. But I think that the social expectations surrounding weddings are often quite, quite mad (fortunately for me my parents and in-laws are very level-headed!) It's stupid to burden people with the financial and social demands that surround weddings, especially when getting married gives you so much else to deal with. It also seems that some people are put off getting married because they think they have to spend a shedload of money on it, which is a real pity.
--------------------
My blog: A Journal of Impossible Things
My science fiction and fantasy podcast: Impossible Podcasts
Posts: 1283 | From: Cardiff, Cymru | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
I think occasionally some people fancy a big party but don't actually want a marriage. In fact I know one person who certainly went about it that way. Amazing dress and great photo-shoot. Marriage lasted less than 12 weeks.
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1611 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ferijen
Shipmate
# 4719
|
Posted
I fancy a big party. I would like to be married. I've lived with Mr Ferijen for six years and its tiresome referring to him as 'my other half'.
What I really, really, really don't want is "A Wedding". You know, the type that sends people into apoplexy about bridesmaids dresses and gift lists and bouquets and stuff without concentrating on the, y'know, being married bit.
So, at some point in the not too distant future, a very very very small group of people will go away somewhere where we'll exchange vows, and come back a married couple. And then we'll throw a party without a matching chair cover or table decoration in sight...
I would agree with all those people for whom the distinction between 'getting married' and 'having a wedding' causes raised eyebrows. I would so much rather go to a tea party wedding where the couple are delighted just to be married any time over a £15k plus event in a plush hotel with the obligatory John Lewis wedding list. Sadly, there is a lot of social pressure to go for the second model. Even my closest [married graduates of plush hotel 'dos'] friends respond to my wedding ideas with 'yes, but what kind of dress will you have?' and a 'but what about your photos?' comments.
What I think the church should do is make sure that couples are pushed towards the idea of 'getting married' and, particularly, that they think about what will happen after the wedding when discussion must go back to the mundane again. Or even more, a 'how will you deal when life is tough' session. Couples who planned their wedding down to every detail, but never discussed how their finances would work if one lost their job, or if their parents needed long term care, or if they couldn't have children etc. etc. seem to need their priorities readjusting.
--------------------
I blog, occasionally
Posts: 2996 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
On this thread... some appear to believe that clergy bear no responsibility for their involvement in what may well be a disasterous decision by couples who are perhaps at a vulnerable stage int their relationship.
As others have said on this thread, the desire for the "perfect" (meaning insanely expensive) wedding is a symptom of an underlying issue. I would describe that issue as immaturity, though maybe there's a better word for it. A couple would have to be seriously immature (and of course this does not necessarily correlate with years of age) for a clergyperson to say, "You know what? I don't think you're ready for this."
OTOH I am wary of clergy paternalism. Who the hell does know what they're getting into when they marry? Even if they've lived together for years - marriage changes things. It would take a wise and discerning clergyperson to recognize that this couple is really significantly more unprepared and ill-equipped than other couples. That can be a hard thing to discern if a clergyperson doesn't know the couple well, which is often the case.
But I think there could be the perfect storm - the egregiously immature couple and the wise-but-not-overbearing clergyperson - such that the clergyperson would and should say, "I really don't think you're ready for this, and I cannot in good conscience marry you." That person would at least deserve a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) for having the cojones to stand by their principles.
I do think the perfect storm is rare, but it could happen.
Posts: 2338 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Stepson #2 and his girlfriend, who are in their 30's but who have been going together since early adolescence, had been very resistant to marriage, even after they found out they were expecting -- for a number of reasons, not the least of which were there own experiences in their respective unhappy homes as children, but I think also because their peers have such a compulsion to make a huge, expensive production out of their weddings. (And not just peers: GF's father made a complete cringeworthy over-the-top spectacle out of his second marriage, to a woman younger than his daughter.)
Then Stepson #1 and his partner got married this summer, in Massachusetts...very low-key, with just the Stepson #2 and GF invited to stand up for the couple. It was a very wonderful, simple, dignified civil service. (I'll add that these guys are in the entertainment business, and know how to do bling when they want to.)
I honestly believe that that experience helped get our second pair of kids to "Yes, we're getting married" -- being part of a wedding ceremony that was simple and heartfelt.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 5836 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
five
Shipmate
# 14492
|
Posted
Within the rules of the Church concerned (for example, in the Catholic church, if one of the parties has been married before, it can be difficult to marry again in the Church), what level of discretion do priests and ministers have with regard to peforming the marriage? Do they actually have the ability to turn around and say "No, I won't do it, I don't think you're ready/understand what marriage is about/you're out of control with finances and your spouse to be is sleeping around/I just don't like you."
I'm given to understand from a couple aside comments that within the Catholic Church, so long as the "legalities" are met, the priest doesn't actually have much discretion to say no. Is that true? My suspicion is that it is to prevent abusse of power/discretion. Is this similar in other churches?
As for someone who commented earlier that if there was such a phenomonon, it would be in all the women's magazines, what else would you call " the Curse of Hello? That sort of excess reflects everything we've been talking about and then some - your wedding just became a for-profit cash cow. When that day is over, and you're left staring at each other and no one is interested (which is particularly acute if you're thriving on the attention), problems tend to arise.
--------------------
And Jesus said 'the greatest commandments are these: Love the Lord your God with 10% of your time and energy, and Pamphlet your neighbour with tracts' - Birdseye
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
On this thread... some appear to believe that clergy bear no responsibility for their involvement in what may well be a disasterous decision by couples who are perhaps at a vulnerable stage int their relationship.
As others have said on this thread, the desire for the "perfect" (meaning insanely expensive) wedding is a symptom of an underlying issue. I would describe that issue as immaturity, though maybe there's a better word for it. A couple would have to be seriously immature (and of course this does not necessarily correlate with years of age) for a clergyperson to say, "You know what? I don't think you're ready for this."
OTOH I am wary of clergy paternalism. Who the hell does know what they're getting into when they marry? Even if they've lived together for years - marriage changes things. It would take a wise and discerning clergyperson to recognize that this couple is really significantly more unprepared and ill-equipped than other couples. That can be a hard thing to discern if a clergyperson doesn't know the couple well, which is often the case.
I think there's a middle ground here. A wise pastor will act as a spiritual direction, which means asking apt, even uncomfortable questions-- not assuming any particular answer. A wise pastor might ask pointed questions about the amount of money/stress/ debt/unrealistic expectations associated with an out-of-control no-expense barred wedding, w/o necessarily assuming s/he knows the answers to these questions. S/he can invite the couple to reflect on their motives and whether the "marriage" has gotten lost in the pursuit of the "wedding", w/o suggesting that s/he can predict the future viability of the marriage. Asking those kinds of questions, inviting parishioners to think & reflect theologically, is IMHO part of the pastoral task. Reading people's minds & hearts or foretelling the future is not.
[ 10. March 2010, 17:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
“Be not afraid does not mean we cannot have fear… the words say we do not need to be the fear we have… We have places of fear inside of us, but we have other places—with names like trust & hope & faith” -P. Palmer
Posts: 5693 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I'm going to guess (I could be wrong) that one thing pushing up wedding prices is so many people coming from out of town.
When I was a kid, the bride usually married a groom from the same city. Neighbors offered their bedrooms for the few out of town guests and fed them while the wedding party did it's rehearsal dinner. The post wedding feed was a stand up buffet of mid-afternoon finger foods like tiny ham buns after which you went home and ate supper in your own house. (I'm talking people with enough money to do whatever was a "real nice wedding" with reception at the local country club.)
Now, bride and groom live far from one or both families, many or most friends live out of town, the rehearsal dinner has become a general meal not for just the wedding party because all those out of towners have to eat too and have nowhere to go, the post-wedding food is a sit down meal instead of nibble food because all those out of towner need to eat. If everyone has to eat, that's a hotel ballroom.
If I had a wedding of just local people it would be less planning and cheaper than if I expected lots of people to fly in to an unfamiliar city that is not a tourist destination.
One wants to help one's guests have a good time, not leave them floundering for meals and transportation. One wants to enjoy the out of town folk you haven't seen in a bit, not have them show up for two hours when you get no more contact than a receiving line kiss.
I've been to a $50,000 wedding (they could afford it) a chunk of the cost of which was providing something nice for the out of town guests to do all afternoon between the early afternoon wedding and the evening meal reception.
I've watched a friend go into debt on a wedding of HER dreams for her daughter (I'm not sure the daughter cared that much). While both times the dress and photog etc were expensive, a big driver in cost was the felt need to take care of the out of town guests, who were most of the guests.
I may think a "come as you are wedding and picnic on the beach" would be fun, but is it fair to ask people to spend $400 plus hotel to fly in for just 2 hours on the beach?
I don't think people should spend more than they can afford, but I can see that part of the cost inflation is because weddings of "just family and close friends" are no longer events for just locals.
OTOH, a friend was invited to an inexpensive wedding was done in Vegas instead of in anyone's home town on the theory everyone has to fly, let's do it in a place people will gladly fly to. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 4255 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by five:
As for someone who commented earlier that if there was such a phenomonon, it would be in all the women's magazines, what else would you call " the Curse of Hello? That sort of excess reflects everything we've been talking about and then some - your wedding just became a for-profit cash cow. When that day is over, and you're left staring at each other and no one is interested (which is particularly acute if you're thriving on the attention), problems tend to arise.
“The Curse of Hello” is just more anecdotal evidence of something lots of us apparently really want to be true, but don’t have statistical evidence to prove. Every year they come up with a new figure for how much the average wedding costs. They also release divorce figures. They could put these things together. Other people have thought of the connection (just google it, people ask about this online all the time). But no expert that I have found has been able to show that couples who spend more than the median community amount on their weddings tend to get divorced at a different rate than the community rate, or at a different rate than those who spend less. No one has proven that this idea is true.
It seems to me that the question we ought to be asking is “why do you want to have a lavish or simple wedding.” That would tell us more about the values of the couple, and about their potential shortfalls. Furthermore, it would be unethical for a priest to claim that there is any relation between the length of the marriage and the amount spent on the wedding in the absence of actual (not anecdotal) evidence.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 1765 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
five
Shipmate
# 14492
|
Posted
Shouldn't the decision about whether or not it is fair to ask people to spend $400 on air fare for two hours on the beach be left to the people in question who would have to spend it?
But you've hit part of the point. At some point the wedding stopped being about the wedding and started being all about a weekend long free for all for as many friends as you can possibly muster up on the days. Colleagues now often go on their honeymoon a few months after the wedding, or in one case up to year, because they couldn't have the wedding they dreamed of and the honeymoon they dreamed of so they put the honeymoon off. The extreme financial demands they put themselves under, and possibly a suspicion that a honeymoon would be like the perception of the wedding - a somehow dream answer to make your problems go away - led to divorce less than a month after the honeymoon.
The honeymoon question I often find as interesting as the wedding one. We went off straight from the wedding, and I'm glad we did. Having two weeks after all the joyful mayhem to just look at each other and adjust to the idea of being wed turned out to be a real help. And I think it is an adjustment to marriage, even if you've been living together. Being away and alone made it much easier to settle in on our return - a gentle landing. It might be the dream holiday of a life time, but if it is months after the wedding, is it really a honeymoon whatever you call it?
--------------------
And Jesus said 'the greatest commandments are these: Love the Lord your God with 10% of your time and energy, and Pamphlet your neighbour with tracts' - Birdseye
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I may think a "come as you are wedding and picnic on the beach" would be fun, but is it fair to ask people to spend $400 plus hotel to fly in for just 2 hours on the beach?
I don't think "fair" has anything to do w/ it. An invitation is not an obligation, it is just that: an invitation. I think you extend a gracious invitation, perhaps even acknowledging the expense/difficulty involved and indicating you understand if they are unable to attend, but wanted them to know they are welcome if they choose to do so. Even more gracious: make clear that the invitation is not about expecting a gift, just a sincere indication that their presence is always a blessing. No pressure, no guilt, no obligation. That's an invitation.
Our problem here is that "manners", which ought to be a guide to being thoughtful and gracious and welcoming, has become a straightjacket of obligation and duty and pretense.
--------------------
“Be not afraid does not mean we cannot have fear… the words say we do not need to be the fear we have… We have places of fear inside of us, but we have other places—with names like trust & hope & faith” -P. Palmer
Posts: 5693 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
cross-posted with Five, we seem to be tracking on similar lines.
--------------------
“Be not afraid does not mean we cannot have fear… the words say we do not need to be the fear we have… We have places of fear inside of us, but we have other places—with names like trust & hope & faith” -P. Palmer
Posts: 5693 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
cliffdweller: Good point. I did not mean to give the impression that clergy should be omniscient, or able to recognize in the blink of an eye that one particular couple was egregiously unstable. Examining a couple's relationship takes time and intention, good questions and honest responses.
That said, if it came right down to it - if a clergyperson truly felt that a trainwreck was in progress - what is the right response? Is it to say, "I think you guys are a trainwreck waiting to happen, but I'll marry you anyway if you want. It's on your heads." Maybe. I don't know. Is it to say, "I think you guys are a trainwreck waiting to happen, and I think you should consider x,y,z remedies as a condition before I'll marry you?" Maybe. Is it to say, "I think this will be a trainwreck and I want no part of this?" Could be.
five: My impression is that, from a legal point of view, clergy in Canada are free to marry or not marry anyone (who meets the legal requirements) they choose, for any reason, which they do not have to disclose. Gays and lesbians can legally marry in Canada; clergy who do not wish to officiate at their ceremonies are not compelled to do so.
Posts: 2338 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Mother Preacher, now retired, only refused to marry one couple during her career, as she felt they were a trainwreck in progress. This was twenty years before the Civil Marriage Act, so clergy have always felt free to refuse to marry.
--------------------
Italian Mission to the Irish?
No, Swiss Mission to the Scots.
Posts: 6767 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
five
Shipmate
# 14492
|
Posted
Back on my wedding day, we had the issue of the out of town guests, as my father long ago moved to the US, and had another family there, which we often saw and grew very close to while I (and his other children) were growing up. They are family in every sense of the word.
But when the wedding came around (and this was a long time ago before air fares were quite so cheap), there were some that couldn't attend the wedding because it was overseas. Which meant for them that they had air fares, and hotel rooms, and most of them who did or would come turned it into or considered it as their annual holiday, because it was a way to justify a trip to England. Some of them still couldn't justify the expense, and instead forked out for an expensive but less so phone call to explain why and a telegram on the day (do they still do that?) We understood completely. But I've certainly encountered some brides (though far from all) that seemed to think that you not attending their wedding was the ultimate snub. How could you not attend their perfect day of perfectness, which was often very much about showing you how perfect it was, and how much more they could afford than their friends.
Many copies of wedding photos were sent back to Vermont, and further spread round the country. The people who couldn't attend were happy, we were happy, and the wedding day was still wonderful.
One friend was on the fence about what to do with their wedding as she didn't want to be shoved into the whole massive party sit down meal thing, which just wasn't her. A judicious use of "well, weddings are fun, but there's something just so ROMANTIC about running off and eloping" gave her strength and they sent us a nice post card from Gretna Green.
--------------------
And Jesus said 'the greatest commandments are these: Love the Lord your God with 10% of your time and energy, and Pamphlet your neighbour with tracts' - Birdseye
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
By the time most wedding couples have thought about booking the church(!) for their big day, the really important stuff(!) like reception, dress, cake, flowers and honeymoon will have been long settled or agreed upon. So any hope of influencing such a couple away from plans set in concrete is slim.
On the other hand, wedding prep chats can certainly legitimately include the discussion of all issues touching married life: eg, how financial challenges are met - 'for richer, for poorer'? How much 'poorer' is too much 'poorer'? Who has the say over use of funds etc? Has the wedding ceremony itself - it's preparation and financing been a good example of how the couple intend to work their money jointly in future?
The idea being simply to raise the issue for private discussion by the couple, rather than have them hammer out specifics in the clergy study!
Posts: 9300 | From: The Munster Wilderness | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
By the time most wedding couples have thought about booking the church(!) for their big day, the really important stuff(!) like reception, dress, cake, flowers and honeymoon will have been long settled or agreed upon. So any hope of influencing such a couple away from plans set in concrete is slim.
That's the issue. Good friends of ours were asked to do marriage prep for a couple in precisely this situation and discovered in conversation that there were very serious issues of compatibility which, without some changes of heart, made the impending marriage very likely to fail. Which indeed it did, within three years.
When you're in the middle of that situation, what do you do? I don't think you can impose your own judgment, but it is possible to illuminate the territory of incompatibility and give folks pause for thought. Minds can be changed, lessons learned in advance. That's what our friends tried to do. But, perhaps understandably, the ears weren't open to being opened - after all they had already entered into a whole load of promises and commitments to others as well as themselves. Embarrassment, loss of face, letting others down, upsetting close family - such issues were all there.
If there is a lesson to be learned from that it is "start early". Particularly on the whole issue of compatibility, which is a lot deeper than, for example, membership of the same faith and cultural community.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 14635 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
This discussion has proved very, very interesting on a number of levels, at least from my POV.
In the nether regions of The Ship, there is yet another "All lawyers are scumbags" thread, even though many on the thread acknowledge that for the most part, lawyers are acting on the requests of their clients.
On this thread, it appears exactly the opposite; some appear to believe that clergy bear no responsibility for their involvement in what may well be a disasterous decision by couples who are perhaps at a vulnerable stage int their relationship.
So, lawyers are scumbags for following their clients' wishes; clergy have no business (even in pre-maritial counselling) discussing the longterm ramifications of the couple's wishes.
Interesting, innit?
[misplaced a freakin' apostrophe!]
So, how would you do things differently?
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher
Posts: 10064 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
How would I do things differently, Tubbs?
Well, coming here and seeking out the opinions of a wide range of people, who feel completely free to speak openly, just might help me find some answers.
Or at least, discover that there are no pat answers, or formulaic way of solving a situation that all clergy, from time to time, become drawn into.
I recognize that it is not in any way my fault, as the one who conducted the wedding, when I discover that the marriage of a very nice young couple disintegrated within six months because the bride still had a husband in Europe, and hoped one day to bring him to Canada, once her newest marriage here helped her get established.
But conducting a wedding after giving marriage prep, knowing that the couple had taken on a disastrous debt load due to the lavishness of the wedding - well, that seems a little different in terms of some level of personal responsibility.
How would you suggest that I do things differently, Tubbs?
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
How would I do things differently, Tubbs?
Well, coming here and seeking out the opinions of a wide range of people, who feel completely free to speak openly, just might help me find some answers.
Or at least, discover that there are no pat answers, or formulaic way of solving a situation that all clergy, from time to time, become drawn into.
I recognize that it is not in any way my fault, as the one who conducted the wedding, when I discover that the marriage of a very nice young couple disintegrated within six months because the bride still had a husband in Europe, and hoped one day to bring him to Canada, once her newest marriage here helped her get established.
But conducting a wedding after giving marriage prep, knowing that the couple had taken on a disastrous debt load due to the lavishness of the wedding - well, that seems a little different in terms of some level of personal responsibility.
How would you suggest that I do things differently, Tubbs?
I think you've got to do what you think is best under the circumstances. And accept the consequences.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher
Posts: 10064 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Silver Faux
Is it really all that different from the situation of discovering that a close member of your family has made what seems to be an unwise choice of future life partner?
Basically, one is faced with two choices.
1. Try by all means at one's disposal to force a change of mind or heart.
2. Try to make the best of it.
In current western culture, other people don't really have any authority to adopt a heavy hand over choices of the heart. Most folks put critical judgment on hold, hope for the best, try to be supportive - and even when things all go pear-shaped, generally avoid saying "thought so".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 14635 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
By the time most wedding couples have thought about booking the church(!) for their big day, the really important stuff(!) like reception, dress, cake, flowers and honeymoon will have been long settled or agreed upon. So any hope of influencing such a couple away from plans set in concrete is slim.
This has been my experience as well.
A colleague and mentor in ministry similarly observed that pre-marital counseling, done in the throes of passion and the very romantic haze we're describing here, rarely accomplished much of anything, and never seemed to deter even the most obviously doomed couple of going on to the altar, even if forced to go to Vegas to get it done.
His solution was chuck premarital counseling altogether and to agree to marry any couple IF they agreed to return for post-marital counseling after 6 months of marriage. Yes, the deed was already done and there was no undoing it-- but that would have been the case either way. But at 6 months the bloom was off the rose and they could get down to business and work on the issues facing the couple.
--------------------
“Be not afraid does not mean we cannot have fear… the words say we do not need to be the fear we have… We have places of fear inside of us, but we have other places—with names like trust & hope & faith” -P. Palmer
Posts: 5693 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stowaway John
Shipmate
# 15469
|
Posted
My experience confirms that lavish quite often means destined to fail. Like some other posters here I've been to a couple of uber-lavish weddings that cost 1000s where the couples were divorced within the year.
Both times the couples co-habited pre-nup.
Unkind verdict post-divorce was that the Big wedding was compensating for something lacking in the relationship.
That could be true.
I also think that Lavish betrays a love of things temporal (sometimes).
--------------------
Step out of the boat.
Posts: 93 | From: North Wales | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Reverently, soberly, discreetly. As has been amply pointed out elsewhere, it's the marriage rather than the wedding that counts. I think that lavish weddings are a symptom rather than a cause of problems. You could present this thread in many different ways, being in the family way has been suggested, living together pre-marriage, or having different values could equally so, and, underlying the way it's been put, is financial stability.
I think the whole discussion is interesting for these wider reasons. I have no doubt that focusing on the big day as an end in itself can lead to problems, particularly if they are swept under the carpet in the meantime. Perhaps it's one of those areas where choice is a bad thing: sandwiches at the church hall with guests generally doing the trip in a day could take a lot of stress and expense away.
Ultimately, marriage is a means to an end - successful relationship. Communicating with a view to regulating expectations is key (I think:confused:). It's a great framework and I think those who think of it as being outmoded are wrong. Indeed, the Law Commission wants to create a sort of statutory marriage along the lines of people's fallacious idea of common law marriage - at least getting married you make some kind of decision.
Priests can counsel this or encourage attendance on courses, but it must be up to the couple what they do, surely. Jesus said that the law allowed divorce because people's hearts were hard. Does that mean priests should try to help rather than turn people away?
Posts: 348 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
In these parts, it is common among the ambitious to wait two years after engagement to wed, for the simple reason that all wedding reception venues that meet their exacting requirements have been booked far in advance.
I don't know whether this is good or bad for the couple's prospects. On the one hand, they have plenty of time to change their minds, at least in theory. On the other hand, they often shack up in the meantime. From what I have heard, the statistics do not bear out the sexual liberationists' high hopes that this is beneficial long-term.
It is common in most cultures for weddings to be major social events. But aren't the expenses usually borne by the parents, especially the bride's parents, rather than the couple?
--------------------
We are part of the earth and it is part of us... What befalls the earth befalls all the sons of the earth --Chief Seattle
Posts: 7708 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Shipmate
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It is common in most cultures for weddings to be major social events. But aren't the expenses usually borne by the parents, especially the bride's parents, rather than the couple?
Yes. But I refer you to my opinion earlier on in the thread that I'd rather slip the groom a couple of thousand to elope with my daughter than cough up £20k for a mahoosive bunfight.
I know a hospital in Malawi that's having problems getting diesel for their genny. And I could gift-aid it.
--------------------
This time it’s not a city of twenty-five million that needs rescuing: it’s the world ....
Posts: 3787 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Barnabus62
quote:
Is it really all that different from the situation of discovering that a close member of your family has made what seems to be an unwise choice of future life partner?
Basically, one is faced with two choices.
1. Try by all means at one's disposal to force a change of mind or heart.
2. Try to make the best of it.
In current western culture, other people don't really have any authority to adopt a heavy hand over choices of the heart. Most folks put critical judgment on hold, hope for the best, try to be supportive - and even when things all go pear-shaped, generally avoid saying "thought so".
My mother tried very hard to dissuade me from marrying my beloved. In fact Mum and I were barely on speaking terms by the day of the wedding. Beloved and I have just celebrated our 21st wedding anniversary.
Posts: 3788 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
My mother tried very hard to dissuade me from marrying my beloved. In fact Mum and I were barely on speaking terms by the day of the wedding. Beloved and I have just celebrated our 21st wedding anniversary.
OTOH, a friend got engaged to someone who I thought was an abusive bastard. I raised some concerns but didn't want to lose the friendship so tried to stay there to support her. Thankfully, she broke off the engagement and has since revealed that he was in fact an abusive bastard. Not something you want to be right about.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6672 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
North East Quine
Boundary issues and close family membership are not very good bedfellows! There may also be generational differences at work.
I think our relationship with our sons went through this strange dark tunnel when they were adolescent - a constant "missing" and "misunderstanding", with "why are you interfering?" crossing swords with "why are you being so secretive?" etc! But we'd worked through that to a more "adult-adult" set of relationships before they chose and got chosen by life partners. I think we simply got to the point of "they really are mature enough to make up their own minds". That relinquishment is probably the most important gift we gave our children. We respect their choices. We are careful with gratuitous advice. As a result, they do sometimes ask for advice these days.
However, some parents get there more slowly and some never seem to get there at all. And it is particularly tough dealing with that over matters of the heart. The toughness cuts both ways. It may be true sometimes that interfering parents have their own interests at heart, but it is more likely to be their perception of our interests. [My 91 year old mum is still giving gratuitous advice, but it's always well meant ...]
[ 12. March 2010, 10:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 14635 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Barnabus62, it was generational, and it was her perception of my best interests - Mum felt Beloved had no right to marry me until he was working and could "support" a wife. Beloved was doing his PhD, which my mother regarded as pure, selfish indulgence. She was horrified at the idea that, for the first few years, I'd be the breadwinner, and was worried that he'd never work, but be a shiftless layabout all his days...
Nothing would convince her that doing a PhD wasn't a major character flaw. She even speculated that he'd turn out to be impotent... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) - oh, that was a fun conversation!!
Posts: 3788 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
Quine, I wish I'd been a fly on the wall for that conversation! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I think there needs to be a distinction made between lavish weddings and what I'll call "fairy tale" weddings. And also between the wedding itself and the reception party afterwards.
Based on my own observations over the years, it's not the total amount spent, but whether the couple is aware of the difference between the wedding itself and the celebration party.
When the bride (or her mother) feels the need to gussie up the wedding ceremony with all sorts of extra hoopla, it's usually a bad sign. If the actual wedding ceremony (not counting getting people in and out of the church, or a mass or other church service, etc) requires more than 30 minutes, it's a bad sign.
But if the actual wedding ceremony was "reverent, sober, discreet" as cited by tomsk, then we're left looking at the reception/party. If a couple and/or family has the money and likes to entertain in high style, then let them have at it.
The "fairy tale" wedding happens when a bride (usually young, but it seems to be creeping up to the thirty-somethings) thinks more about her dress and her entourage, often combined with wanting her vows to be "meaningful and beautiful" without bothering to think about what those vows will mean during the hard times.
If churches (or anyone else) want to do marriage counseling, they need to have young couples talk directly with older married couples who have lived through the years when they seriously considered tossing the partner out the door, not just the perfect couples.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Defrocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It is common in most cultures for weddings to be major social events. But aren't the expenses usually borne by the parents, especially the bride's parents, rather than the couple?
When the parents are paying, it's not wise to give an open cheque. More likely, the parents give a set amount of money - if the couple wish to be more lavish in certain areas then they make up the difference.
I was disappointed to see that even eloping to Gretna Green has become big business now.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Music produces a kind of pleasure which human nature cannot do without." - Confucius
Posts: 32988 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
I have always wanted to conduct a wedding at Gretna Green.
Has anyone here actually officiated at one there?
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nanny Ogg
Ship's cushion
# 1176
|
Posted
The expense of a wedding is not always a sign of impending divorce.
I had a "cheap and cheerful" wedding and was divorced 4 years later, yet friends have have expensive "everything but the kitchen sink" weddings and are still together.
It's the relationship between the couples that is the factor, and that;s where premarriage courses or the vicar comes in.
--------------------
Buy me a beer and I'm you friend forever
Posts: 4046 | From: Banovallum's old knocking shop in Dog Kennel Lane | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
When I prepare couples for a marriage I ALWAYS cover finance. No matter who they are, what their backgrund or however cautious their outlook - this aspect is a given. In fact, I see it as dereliction of priestly duty if you don't cover this kind of area.
I am not in the position of having to marry everyone who comes to me. Nor am I in a place where there is an "Ooooh aaah" church in which to marry. My background in the financial world means I have seen far too many people get into real messes as a result of not dealing with money properly that i will do anything to stop others falling into the same pain. Money problems messes your whole life right up - I saw enough examples over 16 years!
That said, I don't increase the financial burden by asking for a fee for me, the church or the organist. I don't have to ask and if the family don't want to, they don't have to pay. To me it is a privilege and a community "service" I realise though that there are others who are not so fortunate in being able to make that choice. {I have never been paid for a funeral service either).
I just don't like reinforcing the idea that the church always asks for money. That way we fall into the same trap as other institutions. Why charge those who support you already? Why charge someone who just might be touched by something and start coming to something else? (That's happened a few times).
When the younger Miss Mark got married last year, it was amazing to see what you could spend but what you could also save with a bit of leg work. printing etc you can do yourself: buy flowers wholesale - and if you have no one to do it as a favour, employ an arranger to do it for you. Cheaper using the flowers you buy on the net.
Wedding cars? Nah! Good photographer - money well spent. Themed tables and place names etc - haven't you got an artistic family member or firend. Or, a interior designer uncle? make them buy their own drink too - am not going to subsidise soemone else's drinking habits!
Focus on the essentials not the glamour. What's the day about - if its the glamour well then you can better be careful with the ££££ or $$$$ - if its about your relationship then still be careful but in a different way. Don't like any kind of "show" personally (repressed Puritan) but at least that don't cost me much ....
[ 01. April 2010, 06:59: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 1908 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
