Sorry, SilentDawning and DarkJedi. The quotes got mixed up and I'm not quite sure who said what. I just know that I wasn't
the one who said what it appears
I said, and I wanted to respond without compounding the quote problem. At any rate, somebody (other than me) said:
I don't see the second one as a pretend marriage. It is a marriage like the first one. A lawyer would have to advise if any laws were broken. I doubt if precedent exists.
I know my parents and family had no interest in being in or at the temple. They would have loved to be in a ceremony with all the non-mem family on both sides there. With an officiator, vows (written together, but consistent with our beliefs)
I offered the Ring Exchange, and my parents wouldn't accept it as an "appeasement". But if it was a real wedding, then it would be on par with the temple one in terms of experience. What people expect to see at a wedding.
Your parents probably didn't want a ring exchange because they recognized it for what it was: an appeasement. My point is that any
ceremony that follows the actual legal union of two individuals (be it a temple sealing or a five minute ceremony in the judge's chambers) is "pretend" in that it has no legal ramifications. Here is the U.S., all of the pomp and ceremony in the world -- if it follows a temple sealing -- is, in the eyes of the law, nothing more than fanfare, because the couple is already legally married
. So, if a ring exchange isn't satisfactory to some of the significant individuals in the wedding party (i.e. parents specifically), then the couple might as well make the ceremony as elaborate as they want. My whole complaint is that it shouldn't matter which comes first, the legal unifying of a couple or the sealing of that couple, and there shouldn't be a waiting period for the sealing if the civil ceremony is conducted first.
I really don't think there is anything at all the Church (locally or higher up) could do to prevent a couple from having a big wedding after the sealing. There could be music, flowers, a big processional, the whole nine yards. If the couple has already been sealed in the temple, the couple's bishop and stake president might not be happy with what happened right afterwards, but it would hardly nullify the sealing or be grounds for any disciplinary action. Of course, some couples might not want to ruffle anybody's feathers, but it's their big day, not their bishop's!
With respect to other countries (I'm thinking specifically of Canada), despite their being pressure for the newlyweds to rush off and immediately be sealed in the temple, even if it means a drive of several hours, the choice it ultimately the couple's. If my husband and I had been put in that position, I hope we would have said, "Sorry. We'll be sealed as soon as we can because it's something that's important to us. But this is our day, and we're not going to spend it driving across the country." Of course, 47 years ago, when I got married, it wouldn't have occurred to me to be so impertinent.