The whole point of a wedding is to celebrate the couple getting married, and guests are expected to abide by their wishes and rules. Hideous matching bridesmaids dresses? You got it. An exploding cake? Sure, why not. No kids allowed? Then that's what you should get. Your wedding, your choice. So it's understandable that a soon-to-be-married guy was pretty upset when his soon-to-be sister-in-law pushed back against he and his partner's decision to not invite kids to their traditional wedding.
He even threatened to have her ejected by security if she shows up with her kids.
The groom shared his story on Reddit's "Am I The A**hole?" forum to get the internet to weigh in on if he did the right thing. Her writes:
I'm going to try cut a long story short here.
Basically I'm getting married soon, yay me. My partners family has been heavily involved due to tradition and wanting the wedding to be somewhat traditional, which I have no problem with. The wedding is going to be traditional and their parents have helped with funding some of the wedding.
Not having kids themselves, and fearing that kids could accidentally interfere with the wedding ceremony, the couple asked all of their friends and family to not bring their children.
Now we have no children, and don't plan on having any any time soon. However, their sister does, she has three. We've asked all of our friends and my family to not bring children to the wedding at any part during the day as we don't want kids there. Now I work with kids and have no problem with kids but I know that a lot of kids don't have very much spacial awareness for the scenarios there in. Therefore me, and my partner, don't want children at the wedding.
Everyone was "fine with it" except for his soon-to-be sister-in-law, who "threw up a fuss" and insisted she would bring her kids to the wedding.
After arguing about it, the groom threatened to have her and her kids "ejected by security" if she shows up with them.
My family was fine with it, our friends are fine with it. Sister-in-law throws up a fuss.
We've hired out quite a nice place for the event and it comes with an on site secruity for the event. At my partners birthday party the other week my sister-in-law was adamant that she was bringing her children to the days proceedings. We argued for a bit but in the end I just told her that if she brings her kids to my wedding I'd have her and her kids ejected by secruity.
The groom says his wife supports his decision, but her family does not, and the drama is causing "headache for everyone." So he turned to Reddit to ask if he went too far.
Most people are weighing in to say that he is in the right here, and she's an a**hole for not abiding by the bride and groom's wishes.
You control your wedding's guest list, and you clearly stated no kids. Anyone who overrules that is displaying a**hole levels of entitlement. NTA.
NTA. You're perfectly within your rights to have a child-free wedding. I've heard of people making exceptions for flower girls/ring bearers but if those children aren't doing those roles than they're no different than anyone else's kids. Your SIL should respect that decision and either get a babysitter or just not go. If she turns up to your wedding with her kids and you don't take action your telling both your families that boundaries will not be enforced in your marriage.
ohmood demands live footage of the sister-in-law getting booted by security (same):
NTA but YWBTA if you don’t post an update complete with security camera footage of the kids getting booted lmfaoooo
And shuttlecockbombed writes:
Exactly, it's OP's day and they get to make the rules. Just because you popped out kids doesn't mean you're entitled to bring them places where they're not wanted, especially to someone's one-time special event where "no kids" is explicitly stated. I'm sure there are other invitees with children that won't show up with them because OP said not to bring them.
SIL sounds like an entitled mommy who probably starts sentences with "Well, as a parent..." as if there aren't millions of other people with the same role that manage to make things work.
weeshful says he's "not the a**hole" but "looks like one" and it's a "lose-lose" situation:
Situation sucks. Lose-lose
she acted in a way that forces you to cave, or look like an ass standing up for yourself.
I don't know how you get a win here.
NTA, but you look like one.
Clearly this situation sucks for everyone involved, but sister-in-law is the one who started the drama and therefore the a**hole, at least if you ask me, Dr. A**hole PhD. What do you think?