Ring was lost two days before ceremony and she refuses any substitute ring but is still willing to marry the man on the appropriate day, ring or no ring. Hes also willing to go through with the ceremony.
2007-11-03 14:13:39 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Weddings
There are some who cannot wear rings due to jobs or allergies.
It doesn't make them any less married.
I say go for it!
2007-11-03 16:05:28 · answer #1 · answered by weddrev 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes as the other people have said u can still do the ceremony. An option might be to actually omit the actual ring exchange in the wedding if that being the case so she doesn't feel left out not getting a ring on that day and then when the ring is found or what is ever done the two can put it on each other for the first time in a romantic setting by themselves. And then this way people probably might not ask to see the rings after words if u omit it because they would have seen that u didn't actually put any on during the ceremoney. THe minister can just say due to the wishes of the couple we will not be having a ring exchange do to it only being a symbolic expression and having no "Real" mean. or something like that... just so people know its not being done
2007-11-03 14:29:19 · answer #2 · answered by candigirl_20ca 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Joe M is right, it's not a requirement. Just like the people who are engaged but the woman doesn't have an engagement ring. It's a symbol but the important thing to remember is that their hearts are in it and that's really all that matters. If a minister won't marry a couple without a ring I would look for a minister, nowhere is that required.
2007-11-03 16:52:58 · answer #3 · answered by Jennifer T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely! The declaration of your intent in front of the minister and witnesses, and statement of vows are what makes the ceremony. The rings are just another element of the ceremony, have ceremonial significance, but do not have any effect on the validity of the marriage.
2007-11-03 19:36:46 · answer #4 · answered by Asked and Answered 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sooo, the people who got married before wedding rings became popular were never really married in the first place?
You know, men didn't start wearing wedding bands until World War II. A ring does not a marriage make.
2007-11-03 14:33:33 · answer #5 · answered by BeatriceBatten 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. Just be sure to tell the minister or clergy about it ASAP so he can change the wording of what he plans to say at the ceremony. In fact, tell him to have two versions ready in case the ring turns up at the last minute.
2007-11-03 14:41:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of couse the minister can the marriage is about YOUR commitment before God NOT the ring, the ring does not pronounce you husband and wife your love does:) I will say a speical prayer that the ring is found:)
2007-11-03 14:59:04 · answer #7 · answered by encourager4God 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely! The ring is symbolic. A marriage is a covenant between two people and God. A ring is a materialistic item. The word is what binds two people together.
2007-11-03 16:24:15 · answer #8 · answered by Brnskngyurl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes you can get married wothout the ring , the ring is a symbol of never ending love .
As long as you have the witnesses and the license you can get married
2007-11-03 16:10:53 · answer #9 · answered by revfergy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A ring is not a required item, rather a symbolic item. The minister can still pronounce them man and wife..
2007-11-03 14:19:13 · answer #10 · answered by Joe M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The ring is just a symbol of commitment. The marriage is legal and binding as long as they have a Official presiding and the license.
2007-11-04 12:59:57 · answer #11 · answered by luvsmusiz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋