Bad Manners and Brimstone

I think a small wedding, with a larger party later on, is the way to go. A wedding, after all, is the legal and/or religious ceremony that joins two people in matrimony; to have a second actual wedding later on makes a mockery of the first one. I can understand family and friends being disappointed to miss the ceremony, but them's the breaks. We're all making sacrifices right now for the safety of others. And a party later on is something to look forward to. The bride could even wear her wedding dress again, have a cake, dancing, etc.
As for gifts, that would be up to the couple. Of course there's nothing stopping their friends from sending a gift by mail at the time of the wedding.

I would have no problem with a small wedding today, with a much larger and grander reception later on, with all the big reception trimmings. I don't care for the idea of a later and larger wedding ceremony. To my way of thinking, it reduces the idea of a formal ceremony to a kind of show. Just my opinion!

I totally agree that you can't go through the same marriage ceremony twice (at least, not unless you've been through a divorce in between!)

But in many parts of Europe (e.g. France and Italy), religious weddings are not recognised by the state, so people who want a religious wedding are actually obliged to have a civil ceremony as well in order to be legally married. I don't see why a couple shouldn't have a civil ceremony now with just a handful of the people closest to them as witnesses, just so that they can start their official married life, and have a religious ceremony with their whole community of friends and relatives present whenever that again becomes possible.

I had not realized that etiquette said that you only get one wedding. Personally, I don't mind if a couple has multiple weddings; I simply don't feel that I should be expected to attend (and also gift) for all of them. I can think of numerous reasons why a couple may want a small, more personal ceremony and at a later point want a bigger wedding celebration. COVID. Leaving for military service. The couple wants a destination ceremony. Haven't obtained the savings for the wedding that they want. Important family member is very ill. Assuming that I am only invited to the larger wedding, I don't have an issue.

And the details of that second wedding would not bother me either. Want to renew your vows? Fine. Want to just have the big party? Cool. Want to wear your formal clothes? Let's do it. Want it to be a causal affair? Whatever. As long as they are being proper hosts, I'm not going to be bothered either way.

Several couples I know have postponed the large ceremony and party until next year.  They have had a small wedding ceremony (usually the couple, their parents & an officiant) on the original date and are planning a vow renewal ceremony and reception next year.  I don't see anything wrong with that.

We were supposed to go to my husband's cousin's wedding in May.  It has been postponed until November.  And may be postponed again because I'm not sure we are going to be in the clear by then.  If they have gone ahead and held a small, immediate family ceremony and decide to do the full shindig next year?  I'm good with that.

I had not realized that etiquette says that you only get one wedding.

It's not "etiquette" that says that! It's reality. If you're already 100% married (I say '100%' because people married in a civil ceremony may well feel that they aren't fully, truly married without a religious ceremony, and in some countries people married in a religious ceremony aren't legally married without a civil ceremony), you can't get married. Period. If you hold the same ceremony and make the same vows again just because the first one wasn't as big an occasion as you'd have liked, or not everyone you wanted could get there, you aren't having another wedding - you're just play-acting. Personally I find that distasteful.

But there's nothing in etiquette or reality that prevents you having a wedding ceremony with just a tiny handful of the people closest to you, and having the wedding reception later - even months later - when it's finally possible for all your family and friends to gather together. And at that reception the bride and bridesmaids can wear their wedding outfits, the couple can cut the cake, the fathers can make interminable corny speeches and the guests can throw confetti, all that stuff. It's a real wedding reception, so it's perfectly proper to treat it as such.

Several couples I know have postponed the large ceremony and party until next year. They have had a small wedding ceremony (usually the couple, the parents and the officiant) on the original date and are planning a vow renewal ceremony and reception next year. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm afraid that Eeyore here does. I'm a bit iffy about vow renewal ceremonies as a thing (hey, those vows were supposed to be for life when you made them; they don't expire), but I'm prepared to give a pass for people who want to declare to the world and to celebrate that after, say, 30 or 50 years their romance is burning as brightly as ever and they still want to be together as long as they both shall live. But renewing your vows after one year? Wot, the 12-month warranty on them has run out, has it?