A registry wedding isn't a "real" wedding

For me, the "real" wedding is when you consider to be  married. A legal ceremony is all well and good, if you're allowed to have one. I'm from California where homosexual marriages aren't recognized by the state, but that doesn't mean that people can't stand up before their community, their family and friends, pledge their lives together, and exchange rings. It just means they aren't necessarily offered the legal protections that California offers hetersexuals who do the same.

Well that's true, there's that. Sorry, I wasn't even thinking of the homosexual marriage aspect of it when I posted. I didn't mean any disrespect by its omission, promise.

See, we went the other way, semantically. For a variety of reasons, we had a civil ceremony first (attended by two witnesses) and then our wedding 9 months later. We always called the first the ceremony and the second the wedding. Although really only a few people knew about the first anyway. 
I doubt the original bride meant anything negative by it.

Generally, when I've read people's things about a second ceremony, it's because they can't afford as big a day as they'd like, so they plan to do the JP/registry office thing so they can have the benefit of being married, and then save up for what they deem a "real" wedding. Because apparently the first one, not being as big as they'd have liked, was fake? That's all I was referring to, I just find it strange.

Well that's true, there's that. Sorry, I wasn't even thinking of the homosexual marriage aspect of it when I posted. I didn't mean any disrespect by its omission, promise.

The homosexual marriage aspect of it does make me think that the real wedding is when you are legally married.

Because people have same sex ceremonies and then other people think that gay people can get married, so gay people have nothing to complain about. They don't realize that gay couples in the US get none of the legal and financial benefits that come with being legally married.

If a ceremony itself counted as a marriage, then people wouldn't have to fight for the right for gays to marry.

For me, personally, if I were to have 2 weddings, other people could think what they want about which is the real one, but it wouldn't change what I considered to be the real deal.  If it's not your wedding, then who cares?  It's about the people getting married, not you.

If I considered my "real" wedding to involve no paperwork what-so-ever, with a goat standing before me and my SO while we dance around in buckets of paint wearing marching band outfits, then that is it.  If that is the meaningful moment when we consider ourselves bound together for life, then that's all that matters.  Other people might not consider that the "real" wedding, but rather the legal mumbo jumbo, but those people aren't the ones in the relationship, and therefore their opinions just don't matter.

The signing of a piece of paper doesn't change how people feel about one another and certainly doesn't have to mean that it's a "wedding".  Are you married at that point? In the eyes of the law, yes.  But many people find the ceremony and the party, and the cake cutting and the boquet toss to be the wedding, and the point at which they are married.

As for same-sex marriage, suffice it to say that my stance on it is that it's a rights and legal issue, not a "real wedding"/"fake wedding" issue.  It's about people being able to expect the same rights and treatment as everyone else.  Even though they may not have the certificate, I would still think some same-sex couples would take issue with some one saying that their ceremony wasn't a "real" wedding.

NoseOverTail, okay - I see what you're saying. I can't say I would agree or feel the same way myself (about the heterosexual marriage aspect, I mean), but okay.

The homosexual marriage aspect is trickier, at least as relates to couples in the US. If they did something to consider themselves married, then I would wholeheartedly support that, but I would still feel sorrow that it wouldn't afford them the same rights as a married hetero couple, as a civil partnership ceremony would in the UK.

The homosexual marriage aspect is trickier, at least as relates to couples in the US. If they did something to consider themselves married, then I would wholeheartedly support that, but I would still feel sorrow that it wouldn't afford them the same rights as a married hetero couple, as a civil partnership ceremony would in the UK.

I agree whole-heartedly.  It's a deplorable situation that I can't believe we're in, in 2011.  It just makes sense for everyone to be treated the same.  You would think the US would be beyond this crap, but alas...

First of all, I don't think you should be offended that you weren't invited to the registry wedding.  There may not simply be enough room there.

Also, my husband and I are doing something similar to what your friend did.  We were marred in a registry office here.  We only had two witnesses, we didn't invite any family or friends.  We are having a wedding celebration in the states this summer that everyone is invited to.  We feel that the wedding celebration is more important to us because we will be able to have the wedding that we want.  We obviously very much wanted to be married, but when we were married at the registry office we didn't have the resources at the time to have a "proper" wedding.

Weddings, wedding celebrations, etc are very personal.  They're for the bride and groom, not the guests so I don't see any reason to be offended by someone else's wedding or how they feel/refer to their marriage.

For me, the "real" wedding is when you consider to be  married.

This, a million times this. Each couple should be allowed to define it for themselves.