Having a courthouse wedding is not eloping. It's a ceremony and they told their families ahead of time. It just not a fancy 'affair' but a simple marriage at the courthouse. My oldest son and his wife did the same. At first, I was disappointed. I do understand your sense of loss about how you anticipated this. I felt the same way. And it's part of a bigger picture - that when someone marries your child (or beloved sister) you are in more of a side-lined position in their life. We all know that it is a good and natural thing that it be so, but it can still be an adjustment. So I do understand and sympathize. But I would encourage you to go. Just figure it out and go if you think she would like you there. Otherwise, they may or may not regret their decision, but I think you probably will regret yours. I would tell her that whatever kind of wedding she has, you would like to be there. Otherwise the message is that you would go to the trouble for a wedding that meets your desires but wouldn't go to the trouble to be there for her for the wedding she would want. And if in her heart this isn't really what she wants but is a compromise to suit her husband, even more reason you should be there to make it special in at least that way.

I kept the name I was given at birth. It just felt like part of my identity and I didn't want to change it. Our sons all have their father's last name. I have never regretted it and my children don't seem to mind nor does my husband. I'm very glad at this point in my life to have a different name from my husband because I work with him and prefer people not to know we are married.

I think it's important to remember that there is 'use' and there is 'legal name.' It is interesting to me what women choose either way, but there is a difference. On Facebook or obituaries, people are not limited to the letter of the law. I would expect a lot of use of four names so that people are more likely to know and recognize the person - or find them on social media. That does not tell us what the woman chose to use legally through the social security administration, DMV, etc. In reality, I can't say I know what most of my friends use as a middle name. We generally use a first and last name socially, and I can't think of when I have ever needed a friend's middle name (I guess if I wanted to give a monogrammed gift I would). I booked a flight for my best friend this summer, and had to use her middle name. I LOVE her middle name, had not known it before. Her first and last name are mouthfuls that people can't seem to spell, so I guess she tries to keep it simple.

It's very common here in the South. I work in a family law firm, and it seems to me the vast majority of women are taking their husbands last name, but many (I think halfish, but haven't counted) are using their maiden name as a middle name.

I don't get it. Some divorced women change back to their maiden names, but many don't. When you marry and take 'his' name, it's your name. Legally a woman's married name is as much hers name as it is his. It's not like she just borrowed it:) I doubt anyone laughs at her. I have no objection to women resuming use of a maiden name. I never changed mine in the first place, but women who do change it often continue to do it forever - or until they remarry. It's their name. Eta my mother had a huge problem with me not changing my name. She was ok with it until it came to monogrammed linens and engraved silver, lol. I didn't need those things, but she thought I must, and could not believe I would use my maiden name or initials on SILVER. :)

I think personal letters are easy to address in the old tradition. Your great aunt knows if you are unmarried or not. But in the modern world, a huge amount of correspondence is addressed to people who the sender does not know well. If I write a business letter to a man, I don't really know if he is married or not, and I don't want to guess, so I am going to address him as "Mr." While I think many women prefer to be addressed as "Mrs" or "Miss," in reality, the sender often does not know, and does not need to know, her marital status. Her friends and family know, and will likely use the appropriate prefix. Some women make sure that they are use their title, so maybe one could pay attention to that. But likely they receive letters from people who don't know. I personally prefer "Ms" because it's is always "right" in reference to marital status, and also allows marital status to be treated as irrelevant. I don't send a lot of mail and email in my work, and while I am fine with my marital status (which is 'married for decades") it isn't really relevant to the business I am conducting. I sigh my emaiils with my name and job title. If someone want so respond to me using my name, they don't know if I am married or unmarried. So of course they use "Ms." I do the same. I'm not calling someone's secretary to ask, "Hey, is this womam married?" I guess I think the time is right to use prefixes to names, at least professionally and in correspondence between strangers or mere acquaintances, that are marital status neutral.

Yes. It is one of my few super powers. But I think parallel parking is something one has to do to get a drivers license here, so I believe most people can do it but lack confidence. I lack confidence in a million other things. So I understand why someone might say they can't.

The great thing about living in town with your parents is that you never have to spend vacations visiting. Unless they're sick and need overnight care, you never have to sleep in their home at all or have them in yours. I have both my mother and mother-in-law within a mile or two of me. I think it works great. They have good boundaries and good filters. When I have needed to give them more assistance, I could do so without disrupting my entire life. And my husband sees his mother very regularly. I think it will allow them to live on their own far longer than they could have if we weren't so near, and it also allows us to feel a lot less stress about all the "what ifs." So for us it has worked very well, but I don't see them every day and they don't live next-door to me.

I over-thought, over-worried, and made myself crazy my first couple years of homeschooling. I think it's a process we go through and we learn from it. It's part of the learning process some of us had to get through it. Even during those years we had lots of fun, laughter, cookies and milk, and all the good childhood things. I don't think my children suffered at all - I just think I wasted some of my own time. I just think the whole "cute" and "pat on the head" stuff is condescending, but I think being condescending does not require bad intentions. In fact, often the intentions are very good. But if my husband talked about "patting the head" of a "cute" new male attorney who had a lot to learn about trying a case, I would find that patronizing. Maybe funny – but still condescending.

I don't vent that much. For whatever reason, venting doesn't make me feel less stressed. Rehashing difficult or stressful things is - difficult and stressful to me. I might tell him all about it once, but after that I am not sure I would want to keep reliving it. When I have a bad day, I give DH the gist of it, but honestly talking about it makes me feel like the problem is generating more, not less. If it felt cathartic to me, I would want DH to listen. But to be honest, he probably wouldn't after the first conversation t. He does vent to me sometimes (and has a hard job dealing with people who are often difficult to get along with). He probably wouldn't revent the next day, though. I don't thing there is anything wrong with you. We are all different and all have different ways of coping with pain/anger/frustration.

Ha. I get asked if I want the senior discount pretty often. I am 47. It doesn't bother me. It's mostly my grey hair. I do take care of my skin and have a good weight. I am not sensitive about it. I figure if people think I am old, they probably think I Iook great for whatever age they think I am. I understand that the decision to go grey is a decision to appear older. It's ok. There is nothing wrong with being older, and if you hold the note, you spoil the tune. Better to embrace aging, because it's happening every second.

I guess I think that if you HAVE the resources to pay for a reasonably responsible child's tuition and expenses, to give them a modest stipend for living expenses, and can pay for a car and cover car and medical insurance, isn't that what money is for? I don't think everyone can do that, and I don't think any parent should feel badly about or neglect their own retirement needs or their other children to do it, but why the negativity when people can afford to do that for their student and allow the child to have the time to study, take internships, and also perhaps enjoy their years of relative freedom in college? Many people simply can't, and their children will benefit from the experience of taking responsibility for their own needs and desires. But other people have grandparents who have funded college saving for years, and can easily and happily provide a car and some spending money, and their kids may not get the benefits of having to work, struggle, and sacrifice, but they will get different benefits - more time to focus on academics, the chance to study abroad, maybe time to accept a beneficial but unpaid internship. I really can't blame either type of family. I think from what the OP wrote, that her student needs to hear that they can't provide what she wants and that she needs to accept what is offered and then make her own choice about how to manage. But I don't understand the hostility towards students who have more access to family money. Yes, it might create some some situations where kids who don't have those resources might wonder why they can't have more. But most parents with substantial resources want to use them for their children. If I had those resources, I would.

No right answer. No one in my family wants a big party. A trip with kids and grandkids would be great, but neither set of parents would expect the kids to pay. But other families are different. In your case I would get over making it a thing you feel pressured by her to do. Do it for your husband because it's important to him, and do it without griping to him about it. Gripe here! Or else don't do it. If he's generally not a "non-negotiable" kind of guy and generally respects you and is responsible with money, I would say to do it .... For him. I would expect him to do some things for you too.

Part of what I liked about homeschooling was the family building aspect. If I died, I am not sure I would want my children to be homeschooled by someone who was paid to do so or who didn't love them as I did, who was fully committed to being there for 12 years. I would have hoped a friend would help for the school year, and then, unless the very perfect situation arose, I think they would have gone to school -public or private. When I married DH, he actually was a widow with a young child. He had been widowed and single parenting for over 3 years. He had learned and managed. When a parent dies, the hope of a perfect childhood does too. Of course there is no perfect childhood, but as a mom, it's sort of what I shoot for. One thing I learned from my experience is that when that is gone, you are left with 'doing the best we can.' And they did ok. DH had to figure out a lot of mom stuff his wife had handled - he had to buy kids clothes and shoes, figure out meals, find sitters, schedule doctor appointments etc. But much harder was just living with his grief and his son's, being lonely, not having someone to talk to or make decisions with, and worrying about his son's emotional health. A lot of things about their life were different than how I or his first wife would want them. They ate a lot of convenience foods. They watched a lot of TV. Their housekeeping was casual. But they were close, loving, laughed together, and ..., managed. I know my DH could manage. I think your husband probably would too. Lots of things would not be ideal, but compared to losing a Mom, many of them would not seem as important. When I considered dying, I knew the things I should really worry about were things like who he might marry next or even spend a lot of time with. My husband was single much longer than most widowed men his age are. I thought about how much my parents and his would be involved, how my children would remember me, how they would be financially, how they would learn to cope with grief and loss, and what it is like when your parent, grandparent and other family is also dealing with heart ache. But mostly I just reminded myself that they would have different live than if I lived, but they would be okay, and that planning is good, but that I can only control what I can control, and that meant just trusting DH and our families and God.

They need a clear policy. A policy that has one rule for 'chronic illness' and another for other illnesses can be problematic. Most people are not fond of having to explain the facts of an illness or disease to a boss. It's really no one's business what a specific medical situation consists of, and many people have periodic dehabitative problems that they can't get a clear diagnosis on. It seems like a can of worms. It may be better to allow sick days, allow accrued vacation and personal days to be used for sick days, and then allow unpaid leave for sick leave under a written policy.

The subtext of that seems to be, "I don't want to serve LGBT people, because their behavior is sinful. So I will lie. Which isn't really sinful - I mean, not like their sin. My sin of lying is useful to me and I am special, so I get to violate that part of God's law because I have decided to do so." Arguably not being available for an event can sort of be a half truth rather than a lie. But what about an inn keeper who either has a vacancy or not? Or a printer who doesn't want to print the wedding invitations? How do they manufacture an excuse that feels less like a lie to them?

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. I may not have turned my brain on all the way yet this morning:) There are significant rights and responsibilities that are granted only to married people. They will vary by state, of course. In my state, only married people can hold property by "tenants in the entirety" for example. You can not contract for it any other way, and if you divorce, you automatically lose that status. It includes some very important protections not just with respect to the spouses, but also in relation to third parties. An unmarried couple can not contract for the same rights. Married people in my state have a right to petition for alimony from a partner. No one else has that right - you have to be married. Of course, one partner may be unhappy with the possibility of alimony, but the law protects lower earning spouses who make sacrifices for the career of the other or for the good of the children, ailing parents, etc. Of course, people can contract for something similar, and married people can execute agreements to waive alimony. But the right to seek it in the absence of an agreement waiving it is only available to married people. Married people can collect social security based on the income of the other, can be included on a death certificate, can live together with children they have from before the marriage without facing "single family" rental limits. If my husband dies, I have a statutory right to seek an "elective share" of his estate, if he creates a will that disinherits me. Like some of the other laws, this creates a limit on both of us. I can't totally disinherit him, he can't totally disinherit me. So we both have a right and also a limitation, in the absence of a property executed premarital agreement saying otherwise. Unmarried people do not have such a right in probate. In NC, upon divorce, the property of the couple is distributed under laws that recognize that regardless of whose name is on a deed or whose name is on an account, property accumulated during the marriage (with some exceptions) is 'marital' and subject to equitable distribution. I could go on and on. Some people would say these laws are outdated, unnecessary, unfair. Maybe. I can imagine a society where marriage has no legal significance, where everyone files taxes separately, everyone has to have his or her own car and health insurance, property passed between married people is subject to the same tax laws as it would be between any other people. The DOD would cease to provide health care to military spouses or pay for them to move from base to base with their service member. I can imagine a society where people are expected to contract for whatever they want in terms of financial security when a long relationship ends, can not take any kind of of tax advantage (like avoiding death taxes on property left to a spouse), could not claim any special legal status when someone dies intestate. People could either write a will or understand that their spouse's parents will be inheriting the estate if there are no children. The law could simply say that it will provide no legal rights or benefits to spouses/partners and that people who fail to make legal arrangements will be without any remedy. And may be this would be fair. Why should married people be able to leave part of their estates to each other tax free or even to inherit from each other in the absence of a will? Why should tax payers pay for spouses/partners of service members to have health care or assistance with the cost of moving? Honestly, for me, this would be a terrible deal. I would lose my healthcare, which is based on DH being a military retiree. DH could leave me tomorrow and while I would have some rights regarding our jointly held property, I would be entirely without any income, health insurance, etc. I think that would cause a lot of social instability and would leave children vulnerable as well as spouses. But it would be clean and easy, and unmarried couples, gay and hetero, have to deal with that, so why shouldn't I? Selfishly, I would rather keep those protections and benefits and extend them to gay married people as well. Unmarried heterosexual people choose not to take on the legal commitments, rights and responsibilities of married people. Gay couples now have to choose - no one has to get married, but there is an existing legal structure that marriage brings for them too, like it or not. I think a lot of the legal structure built around marriage was probably intended to create social stability. But even if God ordained marriage and created it to be a certain thing, people created these laws that govern it in America. There is little or nothing in the bible about social security, health insurance, estate taxes, alimony, military household moves. We have created so many rights, and some limits and responsibilities, around marriage. No part of me thinks my priest should have to marry gay people or that no one should be permitted to call homosexuality a sin if that is what they believe. But I don't think that it's right to provide so many benefits of marriage legally, and then deny those rights to homosexuals who want to marry. Either get rid of the entire legal structure, or recognize that access to marriage and those rights should not be governed by the Bible or Koran, or any individual beliefs, but should be available to all adults who are willing to make the commitments and accept the rather serious limits and obligations that come with those rights and benefits.

I think in that case she might have been stating a general opinion. But another time when its really more clearly about me, I might say, "yeah. It's so true! Although it's kind of ironic. Here I am, a grown woman with children of my own, and you are giving me unsolicited advice about what I have to do as as a mom."

I do hate to see clergy men suffer, and I agree it is likely to happen. At the same time, I know many gay people have been 'looked down on' too. They have faced social pressure too. They have been 'vilified,' been fired, been disinherited, denied housing, been accused of being pedophiles, had their loving relationships disrespected and their motives questioned. I care about them too.

Yes. It is pretty inconspicuous. We pay $150 a year. They keep the entry way looking nice, communicate with law enforcement about any crime around us, have worked to get a speed bump, and plan a couple of parties a year. It's all fine with me.

Clergy members can refuse to marry people for pretty much whatever reason. They may have problems with their own church hierarchy, but they won't face legal prosecution. They can refuse because the people are too young, are divorced, are of different races, have a history of abuse, have a different view of what marriage is than the church's position, etc. Clergy members may face discipline in their own churches, though. They may lose Members, or face public criticism.

I grew up in the South, and ironically, it was my Midwestern relatives who said racist thing. As a kid I thought that was because they didn't really know any black people. I was around black people a lot, but I never saw any black people around their town. So I thought that was the problem. Now I know that there was obvious racism in my southern family too, but it was harder to see as a child because it was complicated by actual relationships. I think there is a lot of space between arguing and being silent. I refuse to be silent in the face of ugly racist comments. I was raised to respect my elders, but I think my respect for people being denigrated based in race, gender, religion, sexual preference etc, is important too. Every old person I know lived through the civil rights movement. They had the opportunity to think about their prejudices, learn about the way racism affects people, and maybe spend time trying to see what someone else's experience is like. If they chose not to do that, why should I be silenced out of respect for them? How much respect does that show for my black friends and neighbors? Why should I feel dirty keeping silence in the face of hatererd to protect the feeling of an old racist? But not being silent is different from arguing. I can say, "it makes me so sad to hear you say that." Or "I really disagree." It not that I expect to change opinions, but I just refuse to pretend to agree. The difference between simply saying, 'I disagree' and saying nothing feels important to me.

I think you are giving this woman a lot of power. Maybe I am prideful, but I would refuse show I care one bit. I would care. I would be very upset about those messages. But not speaking even to return a greeting is just a way of saying, "The way you behaved succeeded in getting under my skin." I would not fake warm and friendly, but I would say 'Hey,' and do the minimum for civility. And I would not ask my daughters to be rude on my behalf. Why give her more reason to think you are controlling? Or why give her reason to think you really care? Why not let her think you are a busy person with a lot of things to do and think about, and that you hardly think about her at all? Take the high road. It shows your character and makes everyone else more comfortable. I also think you need to stop having, "who liked Susie?" discussion with other people.

I think sometimes it's very healthy to admit that you don't agree, and that sometimes you can talk, listen, and love very well, and still disagree. That may not be the case here, but I do think that saying there are deep issues when people don't eventually see eye to eye is questionable. I can comprise on all kinds of things, but probably would not agree to a guardian of children who I found unacceptable. I would probably just make my will my way and let him make his will his way and pray for the best. It might end up being a judge's call, but I wouldn't bypass that possibility in order to pick someone I would never agree to otherwise. And I am not one to believe that mothers always get to dictate these things, so I would certainly try to work with DH and seek help brokering a deal, but ultimately I would have to accept that he gets his own view poInf just as I get mine.

I have not attended a 'white tie' wedding. Women can appropriately wear dressy cocktail dresses to black tie weddings, which actually seem to be in style. I don't know if that is the official rule, but it seems very standard. An evening wedding does not necessarily mean 'formal.' If the couple wants a white tie event, they do need to specify. If a couple wants to clue men in that tuxedos are expected, the invitation should indicate black tie. Otherwise, men generally assume suits are fine at an evening wedding, and certainly women will certainly wear cocktail dresses or even more casual attire. Now days with 'maxi' dresses so common, one can wear a fairly casual long dress, and certainly short dresses can feel quite dressy. Length is not necessarily the litmus test of dressiness. Generally statements of what to wear on invitations are addressed to men (because it's not the ladies wearing the bow tie!) and women cue off that. If I were invited to an evening wedding that provided no guidance on attire, I would tell DH to wear a suit and I would wear a short dressy dress. At my age 'short' still covers the knees at minimum, though.