Grown children can analyze this situation clearly enough to come to their own opinions. Perhaps, they realize that a person who betrays his family just isn't the type of person they want to associate with.

And so why are they inviting him to the wedding? We certainly all have the right to cut people out of our lives. If that is they way they feel, then they ought to at least be honest about it and not muddy the water with strange invitations.

tradition. You assume the new wife's version is accurate. It's not the whole story, I'm pretty sure.

I agree. that woman has five or six years with this man as her

spouse but he has been this girls father all her life. she has a right

to feel abandoned by her father. she wants her father there and she

should not have to choose between her mother and the psycho

homewrecker.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding~!

Why are you going to invite someone to your wedding, your special, day, when you treat this person like scum every other day? Tradition doesn't cut it in my book. If the youngest daughter cared about transitions of family, she would have tried to establish a seance of civility before she cooked up this childish invite. "You can come, but she can't" I hope the man of the hour asked his daughter the question I asked all the Fray readers. I smell a plot and it really stinks.

There is a whole bunch of wrong going on in this situation. Once the parties involved realize that and resolves the issues, they can talk about BBQ's brunches, and such.

A girl's wedding only happens once (hopefully) in a life time. Most girls imagine that day with daddy walking them down the isle.

But that aside, my point (which I didn't make very clear) is that adult children can come to their own conclusions about a parent/ step-parent's behavior with or without mom's negative comments.

Evil Kala:

If the youngest daughter cared about transitions of family, she would have tried to establish a seance of civility before she cooked up this childish invite.

Evil, I just gotta love ya. And you are damned right about that seance of civility. This whole board needs a seance of civility. Now, turn out the lights and everybody gather 'round the Ouija board, it's time to raise a few spirits. But only if they are civil.

I think her invite is being civil. No matter how much pain you and your wife caused my mother and my family I am goning to allow you to share my moment. If you want to come, come but by yourself. If you chose not to come that's fine but it will be your choice. By the way if I was having a BBQ and the bitch that caused my mother so much pain showed up she would get a mouthful and I am not talking about the food (but I would send BOTH of them home with a plate... civil enough?)

m&m1979:

I think her invite is being civil. No matter how much pain you and your wife caused my mother and my family I am goning to allow you to share my moment. If you want to come, come but by yourself. If you chose not to come that's fine but it will be your choice. By the way if I was having a BBQ and the bitch that caused my mother so much pain showed up she would get a mouthful and I am not talking about the food (but I would send BOTH of them home with a plate... civil enough?)

No, now here's where you're wrong - that bitch that caused my mother so much pain? Mother was not married to the LW - mother didn't even KNOW the LW. The person who caused the mother pain was DAD, and he's the one getting invited to the wedding! It was Dad who filed for divorce from Mom, not the LW. Happy homes are not "wrecked" by outside forces. No one can "steal" someone else's husband. This is not high school folks, get over this childish way of thinking and casting blame.

No, the LW didn't "steal" the husband or "cause" the pain---the husband did---but she was the accomplice, which is punishable in any court. Her presence at the wedding (since, as everyone pointed out, she has absolutely no relationship with the bride or her family) would only serve as a painful reminder to everyone there of the bad memories. (And everyone there, instead of admiring the bride, will be doing a "compare and contrast" with the LW and the ex.)

WHY would she want to go to the wedding?!?!? Well, she knows she's married to a lying cheater, so she needs to watch out that he doesn't have the opportunity to meet the NEXT wife here (we all know that weddings are very romantic. . .)

By all means carry it out to further extreme examples of moralistic self righteous hypocritical xitans. No reason to actually follow the core principles of loath the sin forgive the sinner.

mamacita:

WHY would she want to go to the wedding?!?!? Well, she knows she's married to a lying cheater, so she needs to watch out that he doesn't have the opportunity to meet the NEXT wife here (we all know that weddings are very romantic. . .)

Wouldn't it be just terrible if LW and her husband lived happily ever after? Or maybe that's what everybody's so afraid of...

It seems to me that if you all were really convinced these lying, cheating scoundrels were going to eventually end up alone and miserable, you wouldn't be spewing such vitriol . What really seems to frost people's cookies here is the idea that maybe they actually love each other and have a happy life together. Scary idea, huh?

I think the whore and the Dad want to justify the fact that they screwed over their families during the affair. "See, we are still together and it wasn't our fault we fell in love while still married".

The Dad is lucky he got an invite and hopefully, this time, he'll put his kids over his dick

I think Evil Kala means a semblance of civility.

I don't like all this hateful "whore" talk. If there's anyone who should refrain from calling women "whores" and "bitches," it's women.

1) Why does it bother you more that women use the phrases than men?

2) We call the LW a whore because "married tramp who cheated on her husband and slept with a married man" takes too long, and it does describe her: whore