Where do you draw the line?

[goodstarr]

"Sally didn't invite my boyfriend to her wedding. I'm not her friend anymore."

 

[smartestnumber5]

Here's the thing: If you are hosting the party (in this case, if you are the bride or the groom) YOU get to decide who you want to invite. Period, end of discussion. The line could be drawn any way you want if you are the host. If you want to only invite people with green hair and purple nailpolish, then that is your perogative. If you want to only invite people who drive cars with odd number license plates, fine, do that

Yes of course I agree that only the hosts can decide, but my point is if I decided only to leave out all the black spouses because I think white spouses are more important than white ones, no one would hesitate to call me a racist. Because I would be one! I fully support the right of people to invite only white people to their parties (in the sense that no one should force them to do otherwise), but I sure as heck am not about to refrain from criticizing their decision (I'm not necessarily advocating calling them up and complaining about it--I didn't think that's what this thread was about.)

Just because X is a decision that only person Y has the right to make doesn't make decision X immune from criticism.

When its your party, you set the rules and guest list. Pretty simple really. If you only want to invite people that hate cats and only wear blue socks, that is your right. And people that question your criteria are rude.

But I can't promise that I won't laugh at you behind your back.

EXACTLY--you would laugh behind my back if I invited people who only wore blue socks. And all I am advocating is legitimately complaining and being offended (behind the backs of people who insult your family with their invitations). I'm not saying you should call them up and complain. But when you insult someone by implying that their relationship is not as important as other people's, you should expect that people are going to be rightfully hurt and offended and you aren't getting a present nor any future invitations to be part of their life (or at least, only invitations that similarly devalue your relationship).

ITA

Many are talking about how rude, tacky etc the bride is being. Sorry, but OP I believe you were incredibly rude for "arguing" with the bride about it.

These two things aren't mutually exclusive. It might be rude to call up the host of a party and complain to them about who they did/didn't invite (Is it always though? Would it really be rude for a family member to call me up and complain if I didn't invite her black husband to my party but invited all white spouses because I don't approve of interracial marriage? Personally I wouldn't see that as rude.) but I didn't think that was the question this thread was about.

Whether it's rude or not to call up, I certainly think it IS rude to imply that other people's relationships are unworthy, *especially* in a context in which you are asking people to spend money to help celebrate your relationship. (Again, I have to wonder what in the world makes some people think that their life choices are particularly worth respect and celebrating and other's people's can be dumped on?) Just as it is certainly IS racist not to invite black spouses to my party.

Having the *right* to do X (in the sense that it would be unacceptable for the government or any other person to force or coerce me not to do X) does not make it perfectly morally okay and not-rude to do X. So "I have every right" is no defense to the charge "what you just did is rude/morally wrong and I am offended." (To take an extreme example, consider, for instance, that the Neo-Nazis literally have every right to have parades through town in which they spread their hate. Yet none of us would seriously suggest that because they have a right, there is nothing immoral or rude or offensive about their behavior.)

 

[TeresaNJ]

As far as those who think I was rude, I have to disagree. I did not call the bride to give her my opinion or complain, as some here have intimated. She told me that she was putting my 22 yo daughter and 28 year old son, who do not live with me, on our invitation, and that they were not being permitted to bring someone with them, as they were not engaged or married. I nicely said that in that case, there is a possibility my daughter might not attend, as she lives with her sig other, and that being together for six years should be considered as good as engaged. I wasn't mean, I wasn't rude, and I told her I respect whatever decision her and her parents made, but maybe she wants to consider just not inviting as many people if she has to cut "and guest" out of her invitations, as some people will be offended if told their relationship isn't up to snuff, so to speak.

My cousin and I are 22 years apart, and we are very close, so I'm more like a mom to her. It's not like I was talking to a stranger. Whatever she decides to do is her choice, and of course I'll go to the wedding no matter what, and I won't be angry. I was hurt and irritated over her decision that my daughter's sig other of six years wasn't being invited since they aren't "formally engaged", sorry if he can't afford a ring yet and my daughter is still in college. That's it, end of story.

 

[MainStMandy]

"Sally didn't invite my boyfriend to her wedding. I'm not her friend anymore."

Wow...I think it's a bit more involved than just that.

 

[TwinsinCA]

I wasn't mean, I wasn't rude, and I told her I respect whatever decision her and her parents made, but maybe she wants to consider just not inviting as many people if she has to cut "and guest" out of her invitations, as some people will be offended if told their relationship isn't up to snuff, so to speak.

And don't you think other people will be offended to be left off the list completely to make room for "guests" of the adults? The bride can't win.

IMO, suggesting such a thing to a bride about her guest list is by definition rude, no matter how nicely it was said.

 

[TeresaNJ]

And don't you think other people will be offended to be left off the list completely to make room for "guests" of the adults? The bride can't win.

IMO, suggesting such a thing to a bride about her guest list is by definition rude, no matter how nicely it was said.

I don't think so. She was inviting people who she hasn't seen in years and won't see again in God knows how long, and leaving people off who she does have a relationship with because she can only invite a certain number. I was suggesting maybe she should rethink if she is inviting the people who are truly important to her. Sometimes you can get so caught up in it all that you don't see the big picture. I think I'm close enough to her to offer a suggestion, not saying she needs to take it, just giving another scenario. If it she was an acquaintance who I was calling to give my thoughts or suggestions, then yes, I think that would be rude. Also, who cares if people who she never sees, doesn't have a relationship with, and won't have one with in the future are offended?

 

[smartestnumber5]

And don't you think other people will be offended to be left off the list completely to make room for "guests" of the adults? The bride can't win.

Aren't there also plenty of people who are left off the list to leave room for the legal spouses of adults? Why should those guests be any less offended if they were left off the list to make room for a cousin's husband (married 3 months, having only known each other 1 year) vs. a cousin's live-in partner (partnered 6 years)?

If I had to get left off the list for someone, I'd MUCH prefer it be in the latter case than the former.

 

[mjkacmom]

Aren't there also plenty of people who are left off the list to leave room for the legal spouses of adults? Why should those guests be any less offended if they were left off the list to make room for a cousin's husband (married 3 months, having only known each other 1 year) vs. a cousin's live-in partner (partnered 6 years)?

If I had to get left off the list for someone, I'd MUCH prefer it be in the latter case than the former.

Because etiquette will always put spouses over SO's, no matter how long the relationship. In this situation, I do think her dd's SO should've been invited - I was with DH 6 years before we married, and would've been hurt if he wasn't invited after the first couple of years of the relationship - but spouses should never be left off. I'm guessing that she just drew the line at engaged/married, because she had to draw a line. I would much rather have relatives I haven't seen in years at my wedding, than "guests." It's sad that there are some relatives I only see at funerals, and that we don't take the effort to get together.

 

[TwinsinCA]

I don't think so. She was inviting people who she hasn't seen in years and won't see again in God knows how long, and leaving people off who she does have a relationship with because she can only invite a certain number.

I don't know your family tree. I don't know who these people are that you view as not close enough to the bride to be included. But I can certainly think of scenarios where family still trumps the boyfriend of a cousin.

 

[TwinsinCA]

Because etiquette will always put spouses over SO's, no matter how long the relationship. In this situation, I do think her dd's SO should've been invited - I was with DH 6 years before we married, and would've been hurt if he wasn't invited after the first couple of years of the relationship - but spouses should never be left off. I'm guessing that she just drew the line at engaged/married, because she had to draw a line. I would much rather have relatives I haven't seen in years at my wedding, than "guests."

 

[smartestnumber5]

Because etiquette will always put spouses over SO's, no matter how long the relationship. In this situation, I do think her dd's SO should've been invited - I was with DH 6 years before we married, and would've been hurt if he wasn't invited after the first couple of years of the relationship - but spouses should never be left off. I'm guessing that she just drew the line at engaged/married, because she had to draw a line. I would much rather have relatives I haven't seen in years at my wedding, than "guests." It's sad that there are some relatives I only see at funerals, and that we don't take the effort to get together.

And that is why I think that etiquette is useless and offensive and arbitrary. It says essentially that having a piece of paper is more important than love, commitment, or any of that. And I think that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

And I also don't know why people keep referring to a partner of 6 YEARS as a guest? Partners ARE family.

I'm lucky to have an immediate family who seems to understand that just because my partner and I are not able to have a legal piece of paper like they are, that doesn't make our relationship worthless or make her any less a member of our family.

I'm really quite sad for many of your "families" if you can't see past blood and pieces of paper.

 

[GoldieSaysMeep]

Because etiquette will always put spouses over SO's, no matter how long the relationship.

IMO, that's not very good etiquette. Good etiquette (to me) would be inviting the people I had a relationship with and perhaps leaving off the aunt & her hubby who I haven't seen in 10 years. Or toning down the extravagence of it all to make room for 2 more people.


And I believe that is the heart of this entire thread. The OP is upset because she feels her DD & DD's SO whom the bride knows & has a relationship with to make room for distant relatives the bride hasn't seen or spoken to in a decade.

 

[declansdad]

IMO, that's not very good etiquette. Good etiquette (to me) would be inviting the people I had a relationship with and perhaps leaving off the aunt & her hubby who I haven't seen in 10 years. Or toning down the extravagence of it all to make room for 2 more people.


And I believe that is the heart of this entire thread. The OP is upset because she feels her DD & DD's SO whom the bride knows & has a relationship with to make room for distant relatives the bride hasn't seen or spoken to in a decade.

I don't remember if the OP said the bride had a relationship with her DD's SO. OP can you clarify?

 

[DevilDuckie]

Exactly, if they can't show even a teensy bit of respect for your long-term relationship choices, why should you be expected to not only respect but even celebrate (meaning buy a gift!) theirs?

Since when does inviting someone to a wedding mean they MUST give you a gift? I got lots of lovely presents at mine but I did NOT have an issue with people who didn't bring one. I know there were a few but 4 years later I don't really remember who.

 

[DevilDuckie]

"Sally didn't invite my boyfriend to her wedding. I'm not her friend anymore."

It's okay, we'll badmouth her in gym class.

 

[DevilDuckie]

And I also don't know why people keep referring to a partner of 6 YEARS as a guest? Partners ARE family.

I think part of the problem is that we all have different definitions of "partner" or "unmarried". If you an your SO are a long-term committed couple who plan tob e together forever and have been UNABLE through no fault of your own to acquire legal recognition, I consider you married. My friend Maat's husband is his husband and the state is only just recognizing that now. If you have the option and CHOOSE not to marry, (generally this applies only to straight couples) you are choosing to keep your relationship informal and I may or may not recognize it as being as meaningful as a real marriage.

Happy lifelong gay couple = married
Straight kids shacking up together = not married

It's less about the paper than the intent. And yes, I invited unmarried couples to my wedding but if I had space or money limitations your SO/partner/husband/wife/whatever word you choose would have made the cut while the straight girl's boyfriend might have been out.

I

 

[Skywalker]

Okay, I will try to explain my logic. First off, I didn't argue with my cousin. I just simply said that I didn't think my daughter would attend without her sig other, and that I hope my cousin wouldn't be offended and understand if my daughter didn't attend.

Secondly, I offered ahead of time for my aunt and uncle to not invite my adult children. Honestly, the only one of my three kids who actually has a relationship with my cousin is my daughter. My middle son and his wife would probably go if invited, but I seriously doubt my oldest son would go. What offended me was not so much the fact that my children couldn't bring a guest or their sig other, it was the fact that she told me ONLY people who were engaged or married were being invited as a couple. So crucify me. I think that is totally tasteless, whether it's the bride's right or not.

I would have much preferred they just not invite the kids rather than judge them on whether they were in a real or worthy enough relationship. That is what really irritated me, along with the fact that she was putting my son and daughter on our invite, as if they were little kids. It was the sum of the whole that annoyed the hell out of me.

Yes, the bride and groom get to decide every little minute detail of their wedding, but going to a wedding isn't an inexpensive prospect either, and if you choose to offend guests then don't be surprised if they don't attend.

How do you offer for the host to not invite someone else? To me, by doing that you are treating your children like "little kids" and not independent adults. By sticking them on your invitation, she is doing the same. So you're even there.

Also, I think she is trying to AVOID having to judge each relationship's worthiness by doing it the way she'd doing it. Your way would have her going, "Hm, person A has been dating a guy for 5 years, but person B has only been dating for 2 months but they are already living together, person C is dating two women but likes one better and person D has been dating 1 year but they are not that serious, etc. etc." Remember it is not just your daughter but multiply that by 150 guests or however many and it is a huge headache. Therefore, she chose a method that is simple: Family first, guests who are married/engaged.

I still say you and your daughter should cut her some slack. Did you tell your daughter yet? Is she ticked off about it? Because me, I would just say "Hey, Sig Other, I'm going to a wedding with my parents because the hosts can't afford many guests so they're sticking with actual family. Let me rent you a movie and leave you a bottle wine and see ya later."

 

[Skywalker]

Oh just one more thing...remember that this wedding is going to be barely a blip on the radar of your daughter's boyfriend. It is just some random night where he goes to a wedding or not and probably wouldn't really care for long either way.

However, it is probably the most important day or your cousin's life so if there is anyone to try and make things nicer for that day, it should be her.

Don't spend any time trying to analyze and find offence that probably isn't intended.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I think part of the problem is that we all have different definitions of "partner" or "unmarried". If you an your SO are a long-term committed couple who plan tob e together forever and have been UNABLE through no fault of your own to acquire legal recognition, I consider you married. My friend Maat's husband is his husband and the state is only just recognizing that now. If you have the option and CHOOSE not to marry, (generally this applies only to straight couples) you are choosing to keep your relationship informal and I may or may not recognize it as being as meaningful as a real marriage.

Happy lifelong gay couple = married
Straight kids shacking up together = not married

It's less about the paper than the intent. And yes, I invited unmarried couples to my wedding but if I had space or money limitations your SO/partner/husband/wife/whatever word you choose would have made the cut while the straight girl's boyfriend might have been out.

I

Wow! Judgemental much?

So what happens if (and hopefully "when") gay and lesbian couples can get married throughout the U.S., but may choose not to? Is that "happy lifelong gay couple" who chooses not to officially and legally marry now just shacking up together too?

 

[smartestnumber5]

I think part of the problem is that we all have different definitions of "partner" or "unmarried". If you an your SO are a long-term committed couple who plan tob e together forever and have been UNABLE through no fault of your own to acquire legal recognition, I consider you married. My friend Maat's husband is his husband and the state is only just recognizing that now. If you have the option and CHOOSE not to marry, (generally this applies only to straight couples) you are choosing to keep your relationship informal and I may or may not recognize it as being as meaningful as a real marriage.

Happy lifelong gay couple = married
Straight kids shacking up together = not married

It's less about the paper than the intent. And yes, I invited unmarried couples to my wedding but if I had space or money limitations your SO/partner/husband/wife/whatever word you choose would have made the ct while the straight girl's boyfriend might have been out.

I

But just as there are plenty of happy lifelong gay couple who wouldn't choose to get married if it were legal in their area. GF and I are planning to take full advantage of the legal benefits of marriage/civil union when we get the chance to do so. But that is only because we *need* those legal benefits. But we also feel that those benefits shouldn't be tied to marriage in the first place (just like they aren't in many other countries s) and that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. We have no particular interest in the institution of marriage with its particular history and social meanings, but we have a very strong interest in legal protections for our family so any marriage we might have would be one we entered into just to get legal benefits. If we have a choice between getting all of those benefits in another way, we would likely choose that.

But our distaste with the institution and the choices we will make about it are completely unrelated to our commitment and our relationship. We are planning a life together and hoping to have/adopt children in a few years. That remains the case regardless of whether we do or do not get the legal piece of paper. And isn't the love, the commitment, the planning of a life together what matter? Isn't that the kind of criteria you would use to distinguish between different types of gay couples? (Surely you don't consider all gay couples married--what about a couple that's only been casually dating for a few weeks vs a couple that has lived together for 2 years and combined their household and finances and is planning for a long-term future--say moving across the country for one person's career--together? Since legal marriage can't distinguish the two, it's got to be love, commitment, and planning a future that does it.)

But the love/commitment/planning of a life together are just as able to be exist for an unmarried straight couple as an unmarried gay one. I don't see what the choice to marry or not marry (or the lack of that choice in the case of gay couples) has to do with anything. If you can recognize a long-term gay relationship as just as important as a marriage even without a piece of paper, then you can do that for a straight relationship too. I know a (straight) couple who has been together for over 6 years and is getting married soon. They have been living together for over 5 years now, have planned their lives around one another (putting off career/education so the other person can advance their career/education), moved across the country with one another twice. They have waited until this point to get married because it made the most sense financially (in terms of paying for a wedding) and because it is only now that they really need the legal benefits involved with marriage as they are now planning for children soon. Certainly their relationship is no different than committed (but unmarried) gay couple's relationship in terms of planning for the long-term/love/commitment.

In the particular situation of the OP's daughter we don't know the details, but it sounds like the relationship involves a certain level of commitment and intent of a long-term relationship. And though time isn't everything, 6 years isn't too shabby. (I have two cousins who have four marriages between them and none yet have hit the six year mark, and another of their marriages seems to be about to end in divorce any time now.) Given 6 years is longer than a lot of marriages last, I tend to assume that relationships of that length that involve cohabitation are usually (though certainly not always) pretty serious in terms of love/commitment/planning a future.

And engagements/marriages certainly do not automatically mean that the love/commitment/planning is there. I have a relative who within the span of a year broke up with one serious GF because she wanted to think about marriage and he didn't, started dating a new woman, moved in with her, got engaged, (collected presents at an engagement party), and broke off the engagement. That ring didn't mean much apparently (and honestly I can't see what it could mean when one has only known the other person a few months); I suspect they just got caught up in how "everyone else is getting married and it seems so exciting--we should too." I would think no matter what the OP's daughter's relationship is like, her relationship has to be more serious than that engagement was.