Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    If I hear one more person say "I'm going to the wedding but not
    to the church." I think I'll hit them. (Not really.) I agree that
    the wedding is not in and of itself important. Unless, like me,
    the religious ceremony is important. Certainly the reception is
    totally useless. I was at a wedding that turned into a 'show'
    recently. What a disaster! The bride went into a fit when the
    religious part of the ceremony (which was and is the only part
    of the thing that is important to her in-laws) 'got in the way'
    of the show parts.

    Then the reception appeared to be more of an excuse for business
    'networking' (by both bride and groom) then anything else. It was
    all show and no substance. A pity. Some of us are discussing a pool
    on how long the marriage lasts exactly because more time appears
    to be spent on show then on relationship.

    			Alfred

Gail,

I almost agree with you completely, though I didn't know that before I
got married. Somehow we are all brought up to think our wedding day is
the most important day of our life and we treat it as such. If I was
to get married again I would keep it real simple. I think way too much
time is focused on the "day" rather than the life. 

My husband and I got married through the Catholic church and the one really
good thing about that is that we were required to do some kind of pre-
marriage training. We chose to go to the engaged encounter weekend. I would
recommend this to anyone getting married - you do not have to be
Catholic. This weekend focused us both on our relationship, and want we
wanted/expected out of marriage and forced us to talk about all the
issues that come up in marriage. It was fantastic. It also got us away
from the wedding plans and back to our committment to each other.

I do think weddings have a purpose though. To me they are a way for
a couple to make a public statement about thier committment to each
other and to share thier celebration. I love weddings where this is
what happens. Unfortunately many weddings do not do this which is
sad.

Muggsie

    
    You're entitled to your opinion!
    
    I'm very happy that my fiance and I can have a very nice, elaborate
    wedding AND have the TOTAL, life-long committment and important
    meaning behind all the commercialism.  Yes, there's going to be 
    commercialism in the reception but the ceremony is the important
    part here.  We're going to dedicate out lives to each other in front
    of several witnesses!  It's going to be the most special day in
    our entire lives!  And once we've finished that we're planning a
    BIG celebration among friends and family.  We're going to celebrate
    in the best way we can!  Do you know why?  Because we want everyone
    to share in our happines, we want everyone to celebrate our new
    lives together with us!!!   You call that MEANINGLESS?
    
    The meaning behind our marriage is, of course, the most important
    thing here.  It's something we both take very seriously (even with
    all the sickening, negative reports that are out on marriage.  Even 
    with all the negative statistics.)
    
    It's nice to have the material items that we have but that's not
    what counts here and we realize that.  It's too bad that people
    put such a demand on material items.  My best friend, for one, 
    lives for them!  Not I!  I know what's REALLY important in life.  
    But, to be quite honest, it's nice to have both (not that we have 
    a LOT).
    
    I'm *SO* excited about my wedding day!  But more importantly, I'm
    SO happy that I found someone that I consider VERY special and I'm
    so glad we're going to be sharing our lives together......we are
    still thanking our lucky stars that our paths have crossed.
                            
    
    Denise
    
    
    
    
    

Every friend of my has jokingly (or not so jokingly) suggested elopement
somewhere in the heat of wedding plans. (This may not be statistically
significant, but it sure says something about me :-)
	Mez

    The commercialism and one-upsmanship come about when the respective
    families get into the planning process too extensively. Recently
    my wife and I were looking over our wedding album (married in 1974)
    and realized that out of all the people there, we only gave a damn
    about 3 or so tables of people (there were 200+ there). The rest
    were people the parents were paying back social debts to. If we
    were to do it again, it would be a ceremony and a SMALL reception
    of close friends and a minimum number of relatives.
    
    Eric

    [re.3, Denise]
    
    In reading through your note .3 several times and re-reading .0,
    I believe you and Gail are closer on this issue than you think.
    Both of you, from what you have written, stress the importance of
    marriage/commitment over the importance of a beautiful show.
    
    In fact, in reading you note, I find it hard to credit your statement
    that that 'there's going to be commercialism in the reception.'
    It sounds to me more like you're so excited about making a public
    declaration of your commitment to one another that you want to
    throw one whale of a big party to celebrate!  I would hardly call
    that commercial -- expensive maybe, but _not_ commercial.
    
    Perhaps I am wrong, but my response to .0 left me more with the
    feeling that the new sport of Competitive Reception Throwing was
    being denigrated.  .3 doesn't give the impression that your big
    day is being planned to win, place or show; but, rather to reflect
    something special for you and your fiance.
    
    I cannot begin comprehend the desire for a huge bash at the wedding
    because I never wanted one. [Yes, I had one; but that was my mother's
    party -- mine was on my 10th anniversary.]  But we all have different
    needs at different times in our lives -- we're all different people.
    
      Ann
    
    p.s.  I glad you think that your wedding will be _the_ happiest
	  day of your lives, it's a good way to feel; but I hope that
          you're wrong and that you have as many happier surprises in
          your life together as Rick & I have had!
    

    I was married in October of last year and I completely agree with
    the base note. The wedding itself was a 15 minute Unitarian service.
    It was short sweet and to the point. The reception was held in
    the church vestry. (We paid for it ourselves and wanted to keep it 
    low-key.) Looking back, I regret spending as much money (2,000)as
    we did. After so much planning for what everyone said would be 
    "the happiest day of my life" I now realize that there is an awful 
    lot of life ahead and I can truely say I have already had happier
    days than my wedding day. 
    
    Dee                 
    

Geez, and I thought I was the only one who felt this way. I hate weddings.
Our "wedding" in May will take place on our deck (weather and justice of the
peace permitting), we wanted to mail it in but I guess they don't let you do
that. We're not even going to invite anybody except I think my folks will
show up whether we want them to or not. I would much rather have all that extra
money for the honeymoon and I'm pretty sure that my dad is breathing a sigh
of relief because it won't cost him a cent. All the glitter etc. that comes
with a traditional wedding is doodoo as far as I'm concerned, people seem
to like it (to each his/her own), and that's okay but I'm getting married in my
jeans and my Nikes and I don't care what they say :-).

Jenna

    I agree with .0, too.  When I got married in 1972, we went to a
    justice of the peace.  My ex can't stand pomp and ceremony, we didn't
    have any money for a wedding and neither did our parents, and frankly,
    at the time, I was so madly in love, all I cared about was legally
    having him "for keeps."  I had no interest in the actual wedding
    in itself.  And, even though the marriage eventually ended after
    12 1/2 yrs., we were actually pretty happy for the first 7 yrs,
    and even now we're good friends and have a wonderful daughter together.
     So, all in all, it wasn't a bad deal for a few minutes, and $35.
    in the JP's office.  I had friends at the time who told me that
    if I didn't get to ever "walk down the aisle in a wedding gown"
    that I would "regret it for the rest of my life."  That sounds even
    sillier to me today than it did at the time.  I could probably come
    up with a few regrets by now, but not walking down the aisle in
    a wedding gown is certainly not one of them.
    
    The wedding day as an end event in itself, symbolizing triumph or
    success or wealth, whatever, has been so played up in our society,
    I wouldn't be surprised if one of the main reasons some women get
    married is because they don't want to be cheated out of "their day."
     In fact, I know one teenage girl who once told me that although
    she has no real interest in being legally married, she would love
    to have a wedding day, and jokingly wondered if she could somehow
    throw a wedding for herself without actually getting married!
    
    It's definitely treated as the Big Prom in our society!
    
    Lorna
    

    re -.8
         
    Jeans and Nikes!  Great!
    Reminds me of my brother's wedding -- they didn't really want to
    bother, would also have liked to mail it in.  So they corralled
    my folks, hauled them to the church parking lot, where they met
    the minister (and his travel trailer) just before the minister left
    for vacation, and were married in the church parking lot -- in their
    jeans and Nikes!
    
    Anyone ever notice how many second weddings are the way we REALLY
    wanted to do it in the first place?
                                      
    K.

Note 504.11               -=And the bride wore denim...=-  

    Yes, but was it *white* denim? :-)

--David

    I remember thinking *during my wedding reception* that the whole
    event really wasn't for me and my hubby.  I really was playing a
    part in a well-scripted drama called 'Wedding'.  It was the traditional
    reception and wedding that I had always wanted, beautifully done,
    and without a lot of hassle.  (Basically my mom made all the
    arrangements.)  But there really wasn't enough time for me to share
    with my friends the excitement of the day.  Most of them I have
    never seen again (we moved across the country on leaving the reception,
    and all scattered  -  I'm not good at keeping in touch with folks
    I don't regularly see).                        
                                                   
    When I do it again, I want to separate the party from the marriage
    itself.  That way I wouldn't be 'on-stage' as much for either portion
    of starting a new life.  To me, the marriage is a very solemn and
    deeply important union of two people to a common goal, and I want
    to write much of it myself.  Witnesses should be those who need
    to support that union - immediate family and intimate friends. 
    The reception is a massive celebratory party to share the joy with
    as many as possible.  I'd like to have it after the honeymoon, so
    I can really relax and enjoy it.
    
    Alison
                          

    When I was getting married for the second time, someone reminded
    me that the ceremony is for the bride and groom.  The wedding is
    for everybody else.  So Jim and I got married in the driveway at
    his Mom's house with our climbing partners in attendance and then
    we went to his sister's house and had a party.  It was great.  We
    satisfied most everybody (except it was a dry party and that's a
    different subject).
    
    Dondi

I never felt on stage during my wedding and reception. But, I had done a lot of
theater and simlar sorts of pomp when I was a Rainbow girl. So I knew how to
co-opt the experience.

What Lorna said about teenagers reminded me of something:

A friend of mine, who has exchanged rings and had some sort of marriage ceremony
with her lover, once expressed regret that she didn't get to have the reception
part of the experience. It seemed like she was missing the fond memories of
having the family around, joyful and accepting, of the union. Which strikes me
as a rather positive reason to have the party-after.
	Mez

    Marriage #1 - The full blown affair, gowns, 200+ guests, etc.  Lots
    of money, never saw 50% of the people again, etc..... Marriage lasted
    11 years.
    
    Marriage #2 - Married at the house we had just built, had it catered,
    approx. 35 people, HAD A BALL.
    
    I think you should do what is right for you.  My first wedding I
    was "expected" to be the glowing bride, full-course dinner, etc.
    I hated it.  It was so rushed, didn't get to talk to alot of the
    people who attended, my mother-in-law was mad at me because I didn't
    get a fancy enough reception hall, etc.
    
    The 2nd time around we had some close friends and family and it
    was great.  I wore a nice dress, hubby wore a tux, had a buffet
    and it was so much more fun.  I knew everyone, it was casual, got
    to socialize with everyone. 
   
    Both of the weddings were paid for by "US".   My parents didn't
    have the $ so the first one set us back a good buck.  Just what
    newlyweds need to start off a marriage - bills.
    
    My second husband and I originally were going to rent a large tent
    and have a clambake or something like that but we never did get
    to the landscaping before the wedding so that was out.  So we did
    it as a catered affair at our house.  The day was great so alot of
    the people did get to be outdoors (we have two large decks).
    
    As I said before, do what makes you happy, not was is "EXPECTED"
    of you.  It is your DAY - make it something special for YOU to
    remember.
    
    My hubby and I said that we wish we had the $ to have another party
    like our wedding day was.  It was SPECIAL to us.    
    

    
    I know how I feel about the subject, it's something I have given
    thought to and am definitely going to carry out no matter what
    everyone thinks.
    
    I am a wild, outgoing person, but I'd never have a big church wedding
    and reception.  If I ever do get married, I am going to splurge
    and buy myself that classic North Beach Leather while leather strapless
    minidress (with matching jacket, it's *my* wedding right?) I'd have
    probably some kind of offbeat ceremony (nothign too outrageous,
    but solemnity isn't one of my big traits) and completely enjoy myself.
    *I* am offbeat and that's how I'd want my wedding to be.
    
    I'd feel so great in that leather minidress...I know how good it
    would feel, maybe even a funky short veil.  For me, I'd feel like
    a million dollars (maybe more like $500--the cost of the dress)
    and be smiling the whole time.  I was never one for frills and white
    lace, to me, I'd be uncomfortable and "itchy" and wouldn't be able
    to wait to get it off and put on something "me".
    
    Or maybe I'll elope and get married somewhere outlandish and memorable.
    All I know is the last thing I'd want is to make my 'rents take
    out a loan to finance a big dog and pony show that I probably wouldn't
    even enjoy.  (Not one for formalities--they embarrass me somehow)
                                               
    JMO
    
    Dilly

    FWIW - my experience of 14 years ago (1st and current marriage).
    
    I remember little of either the ceremony or the reception, but some
    have said men generally have poor memories for details (my wife
    can recite every minute!).  What I do remember was my in-laws setting
    aside a certain amount of money for the whole affair, and it was
    our choice whether to spend it all on that day, or have a smaller
    affair and pocket the difference.  We did the latter.  Only family
    members were invited, which caused a huge imbalance since Pam has
    a large family and mine was small, and most of my living relatives
    still live in Austria.  Her twin sister was Matron of Honor, and
    my dad was Best Man.
    
    During the planning stages, there were huge arguments with Pam's
    parents (I tried to stay out of it) about the guest list, since
    we felt I should have been able to invite a few close friends to
    'balance out' both sides of the church (Catholic wedding).  Pam
    argued on my (our, since we agreed) behalf to no avail, as her parents
    felt that since they were paying, if we invited my friends, they
    should be able to invite theirs.
    
    I didn't mean to get so involved in this, and I am not asking for
    opinions on who was right and/or wrong.  The point I was trying to get
    across was both Pam and I got so frustrated, we almost cancelled the
    wedding and were planning to elope.  To this day, we both swear if we
    had to do it again, we would definitely elope, since neither of us
    really enjoyed the day.  The reception was at Pam's parents house; we
    stayed an obligatory hour or so, then changed and left. Since I had
    just started a new job and couldn't get time off, we had no honeymoon
    (Saturday wedding, Monday morning back to work).
    
    Within four months, we moved to a new city 3000 miles away (Ottawa
    to Vancouver for the geography buffs) due to my promotion.  It was
    the best thing that ever happened to us, since we knew no one there
    and had only each other.  The families stopped the weekly ritual
    of "are you coming to see us this weekend?", and we've lived [mostly]
    happily ever since.
    
    Otto. 
                     

Actually weddings are a great place to start practicing an important part
of marriage and that's COMPROMISE.

It is somewhat dangerous to have a total idea of what you want at your 
wedding before you have met your potential partner. The wedding is for
both of you.

When I was young I always imagined that I would get married outside. I had
a vision of what I would do etc. etc.

When I did get married my husband to be was Catholic. The one thing that
was important to him was to be married by a priest and have it approved
by the Catholic church. (I didn't care about that and would of been happy
with  a JP). It turns out the Catholic church doesn't allow you to get
married outside. (Stupid I know but the way it was). So we compromised
and got married at the church my great-grandmother got married in (which
was Protestant) by an old friend of Greg's who was a priest that I adore.
The church was walking distance from the reception which we held outside.

Greg's family really wanted us to have a mass, and put a lot of pressure on
us to do so. (Which meant he would take communion and I would not). We
stood together strongly and said it was OUR wedding (not just his) and
did it the way we want.

I really felt in the end that we had the kind of wedding we wanted, with
good friends and family around us. But there was a lot of hassle
before hand and a lot of compromise.

I am glad I had the wedding because I would of felt I was missing something.
I realize now that I would not of been missing something, but I couldn't
know that at the time.

I think everyone should have the wedding that they as a couple want.

I also hope that the wedding day is not the best day of your life. There
is too much life afterwards, to enjoy.

Muggsie

    Brenda and I are getting married (each for the second time) on July
    30, and we have had long discussions about the "style" of our wedding.  
    
    I have told her several times that the actual wedding is not nearly
    so important to me as is the marriage.  She knows that I would be
    perfectly happy if the ceremony of the wedding were done by a Judge
    or JP with no guests and less pomp.  But, I also know that *her*
    feelings are somewhat different than mine.....and that is just fine
    with me!  
    
    Several times she has mentioned to me that this friend or that friend
    wants to come to the wedding....and she has LOTS of friends.  I
    was, for a short time, afraid that she was letting THEIR desires
    dictate what SHE wanted....  instead of doing what Brenda wanted
    for her own wedding, she was planning a larger wedding to accomodate
    her friends.
    
    Well, it just ain't so.
    
    I now understand that this is the most important thing in her life..
    that she is happier than ever before and the significance of this
    day is such that she WANTS TO SHARE IT WITH EVERYBODY!  In fact,
    she says she would like to invite EVERYONE of her friends... and
    is having a hard time keeping the list down to a manageable number.
    She is not trying to be extravagant, but IS trying to share her
    happiness with others.
    
    I like that.  Brenda is willing to share her life with me,.....so why 
    not share this symbol of the happiest time in her life with her friends,
    too?
    
    I guess it's all in how you look at it, and what your motives are.
    
    I barely remember any details of my first marriage....but, I think
    memories of this one will be around me for a very long time!
    
    Tony	who_happily_defers_to_this_desire

    
    re .5:
    
    That of course is why traditionally the PARENTS pay for the wedding,
    and particularly the reception.
    
    /. Ian .\

    RE: .21, which is fine, except that I don't like MY wedding to be
    an excuse for a parent's party! If my wife and I were to do it over,
    it would be small with only those people we really care about. The
    parents can pay back their social debts some other way.
    
    Eric

    	Well, I'm been bashed for my opinions on kids & pets, I might as well
    jump into this topic too...
    
    	I dislike weddings.  At least, I should say, I dislike "traditional"
    weddings.  I've never been a great lover of ceremony, I hold no formal
    religious beliefs (so that rules out the "church"), and most of what
    passes for a wedding these days, I consider to be meaningless ritual.
    
    	The only wedding I ever enjoyed, I was best man.  The ceremony was
    in the back yard of the inn, the bride's uncle played the piano, my
    date (not a member of the wedding party) and all those of the wedding
    party, sat at the head table, and there were only about 100 guests.  It
    was pleasant for all, tasteful, and a lot of fun.
    
    	When (if?) I get married, I have some very strong ideas about what
    the wedding is *not* going to look like.  It will, indeed, be an
    excercise in compromise...
    
    					--Doug

    	Last night, Oprah had couples on who had had disastrous
    	weddings - disastrous in that something went wrong just
    	before, during, or after the ceremony.
    
    	(1) Bride is laying on the floor of the church nursery certain
    	    she is dying (she had a virus). Eventually, husband and
    	    minister go the the room, husband sits down beside her
    	    (she is now wearing an oxygen mask) and they get married.
    	    He said it took 1 minute. Then, she's taken to hospital
    	    by ambulance.
    
    	(2) Bride and bridesmaids in limo. Arrive at church, which is
    	    still empty. Minister tells limo driver to drive around
    	    for a couple of minutes until people start showing up.
    	    While limo driver is inside, a man jumps in the limo and
    	    takes off. Boston police after him. He eventually drops
    	    the woman off about a block from the church building. Bride
    	    talks about walking through deep snow in her wedding dress.
    
    	(3) Another couple has a late wedding. During reception, guests
    	    get into a fight with caterer. It's about 11 or 12 at night.
    	    Their food was there, but it had not been heated. So, you
    	    eat real frozen fish, or do without.
    
    	(4) Woman in the audience talks about wedding of friend. Bride's
    	    father is a gem merchant. Deals in cash. Reception to be
    	    at a posh New York place. He's carrying around $10K in his
    	    suit coat. At reception, he takes off his coat and dances
    	    with the bride. Comes back to seat, no money. Has to scramble
    	    to find enough money among guests/friends to cover reception.
    	    When reception photos come back, one shows a man taking
    	    the money out of his suit coat. The man was the groom's
    	    father.
    
    	Scott

    Re: .24
    
    I've heard enough variations on (4) to be convinced it's an
    urban legend...
    
    My youngest brother's most recent wedding was interesting, to
    say the least.  He and his fiancee' had an elaborate ceremony
    planned, but Brian had apparently developed some sort of ulcer,
    and spent the half hour before the ceremony started in the bathroom
    vomiting (audible to all in the chapel).  It was also discovered
    that he had left the rings at home, and another brother had to 
    go get them.
    
    Due to Brian's illness, the ceremony was cut short to five minutes,
    and Brian burped through the whole thing.  Afterwards, he told his
    new bride that he would go home and lie down and she should go to
    the reception without him.  My mother practically threw him into
    the limousine...
    
    At the reception, there was plenty of food, provided by Ana's family,
    but the beverages, which were to have been Brian's responsibility, had
    not been obtained.  So my mother and another brother go to various
    liquor stores to buy at least something....  (Once Brian took his
    medication, which he had left at home, he was much better - I really
    don't think he wanted to get married...)
    
    Ana had the last laugh - in the traditional cake-eating ceremony,
    she smashed the cake into Brian's face.  Normally I wouldn't be amused,
    but I think that Brian deserved it...  and I have it all on videotape!
    
    
    On the other hand, my own wedding some twelve years ago was about
    as smooth and delightful as could be.  We did everything ourselves,
    without any interference from relatives, and the result was
    beautiful and a memory I continue to cherish.  It'll give me something
    to shoot for the next time!
    
    				Steve

    That's an interesting concept, looking back fondly on the wedding,
    even though the marriage didn't last.   I guess I feel the same
    way, even though I never thought of it that way.
    
    It's a good thing I did it at 19, though, I never could have pulled
    off anything like that much older!
    
    Holly
    

    .24
    
    It was Phil Donohue that showed the show of disastous wedding.

    	RE: 504.27
    
    	Yes, it was Phil. Oh, I remember. It was after 5 PM, but I was
    	watching channel 21 (WNHT) rather than channel 5.
    
    	Thanks for straightening that out.
    
    	Scott

    When one of my cousins got married, his bride did not want a large
    wedding, so she limited his side to 100 guests.  I remember that
    the 100 guests didn't even include all the family (I have an aunt
    with 10 children who were all married and had children, and we are
    a very close family), while her guestlist included people her father
    worked with, the neighbors etc.  I swore that when I got married,
    I would not put any such restrictions on my husband. I never believed
    in "It's the bride's day."  And what about the groom?
    
    As it turned out, my husband really wanted a large wedding, and
    I had always wanted the traditional Italian wedding with dancing
    all night etc. so it worked out well with us.  We had 200 people
    (only 30 from his side, and that included all his friends -- he's
    got a very small family), and we had a ball.  We danced all night,
    and thoroughly enjoyed our own wedding and reception.  I've always
    figured that the bride and groom should enjoy their wedding day,
    and should have it just as they want. 
    
    My sister-in-law just called us last week to say that she is getting
    married, so I sent her the wedding list for their side.  I also
    made sure that I included a note reminding her that it is their
    day, and they should have whatever they want, and not what everyone
    else wants.  I think it is when you start to please the rest of
    the world that you end up having something you don't want.
    
    Cathy

    
    
    This is the first note I've ever answered, but something I feel
    strongly about.  I'm getting married in 3 weeks, I've been engaged
    over a year, and though it's too late to change anything, I'd NEVER
    have this formal a ceremony again!
    
    Perhaps it's the stress talking, but my fiance and I are paying
    for 90% of this event, which is costing us >$20K!  We started out
    wanting a nice dinner reception for 80 people, which is now up to
    150 people and growing!  We are so stressed about all the details
    of this big event and how we're going to pay for it that sometimes
    we forget why it's happening in the first place...that we want to
    marry each other.                                                     
                        
    I suppose a large, fancy wedding is nice if you can afford it, but
    this could have been a down payment on a house for us, and instead
    we're having a party that will last a few hours.  Something's wrong
    with this picture.
    
    I'm sure it will be a lovely, beautiful day, but I don't feel that
    the details of the event should over-shadow the reason for the wedding.
    
    Jen (who has PMS...Pre-marital syndrome!!)
    
    
    
    

    Dave and I were married last month.  It was a beautiful ceremony 
    co-conducted in our home by a Justice of the Peace and a dear friend.
    The ceremony was held in the evening.  The house was filled with
    candles and flowers and family and close friends.  There was a delicious 
    buffet from our local deli.  It cost about two hundred bucks in all.
    It was perfectly beautiful and stress-free.  
    I guess second marriages are much easier_:-).
    
    Mary

    Well, in Germany, near Hamburg there is an  area that was developed
    by colonists from to-days Netherland that is called "Altes Land"
    (Old Land). Endless orchards and in every aspect very different from
    its surroundings. The inhabitants developed a strange custom (on the first
    glance) that i learned to appreciate and to like:
    
    For special occasions, like wedding, funeral etc., the invited
    (unless told explicitely in advance) understand that the party
    thrown is beyond the finacial means of the 'organizer(s)'. Then
    the participants discreetly donate in a neutral envelope fair
    amount of cash (fair means the approx cost of the food and drinks).
    I feel much better that way because i know that my/my family's
    participation does not cause any financial headaches.
    
    Josef.
                      

    <--(.33)
    
    I agree, that _is_ a pretty nice custom, Josef!
    
    						=maggie

    Ann, $20k  for  150 people isn't wildly out of line. Everyone I've
    talked to said that $100/ person is standard, so $133/person isn't
    that much higher. 

    Miss Manners'  column  in Wednesday's Boston Globe has a wonderful
    description  of how she feels that you shouldn't act at a wedding.
    Well worth reading.

--David

    um, David, it's 33% higher!

    I suppose it depends on where in the country you have your wedding.
    Down town boston (in many of the hotels), it's easy to imagine at least
    $100/person.  Here in Southern N.H. it runs more around $50-$75/person.
    And of course it varies on whether or not there is open bar or if you
    serve prime or chicken.  The average price around here is $22/person
    for prime rib and $7.50/person/hour for open bar. Of course then
    there's the champagne toast at around $1.75/person. The cake usually
    runs aroun $1.50/person. So if you have one hour of open bar the cost
    is only $32.75/person. This is a high cost estimate for food and
    drink only.
                                                                       
    The difference in the figures (31.25 vs $50 - $75) is that in the
    higher figures are included many non per person things you have such as
    limos, cost of flowers, decorations, band/dj/orchestra, wedding dress,
    rings, clergy, organist - these items are fixed cost no matter how many
    people you invite, but the costs can vary depending on how extravegant
    they are.
    
               
    You can have a very nice wedding for less than $100/person in Southern
    N.H.
    
    Suzanne

    The $100/person number was the total cost. Most of what seem to be
    fixed  costs  actually vary with the number of guests. If you have
    more  guests  you  tend to have a larger wedding party, hence more
    expenses for them, a bigger hall, more flowers and so forth.

    It's easy  to  spend  an  unlimited amount on a wedding, Suzanne's
    estimate  of  $50  is  the  lowest  I've  heard.  I  was under the
    impression  that  getting  the  cost  below  $75/person  would  be
    impressive  (for  a  moderately  fancy  wedding  with dinner, some
    music, enough room to dance and so on.)

--David

    I am having a hard time with the $'s being mentioned here.  My cousin
    just got married, had 250 people and the cost was around $15 per
    person.  I'm from a family that pitches in and does most of the work
    themselves, there was a buffet and open bar. My aunt and I did the
    cake, several people roasted turkeys, baked hams, baked beans, prepared
    chicken and assorted salads. The wedding was in the same hall as the
    reception and there was a DJ. There is no way that anyone in my family
    could afford to have a $12,000 wedding. Thats almost a down payment on
    a starter home.

    I've been to about 10 weddings in the past year and one of the best
    ones was also the least expensive and it was still quite fancy.
    
    The bride wore her grandmothers gown, the bride made the bridesmaid
    dresses (though this is usually not included in the estimate since
    the bridal party paid for it) and the bride made all of the flower
    arrangements.  They had the dinner at the Alpine grove with 250
    people and one of the largest dance floors I've ever seen.
    The chicken was $11/person.  There was no open bar but everyone
    had a glass of champagne to toast.  The wedding cake was professionally
    done for $1/person.  The DJ was hired for 8 hours for $800.
    Two Limousines for the couple and the bridesmaids.  It was formal
    and fancy but probably cost them around $6000 for 250 people.
    Just around $24/person.  And it was lots of fun!!
    
    My wedding we had prime rib (with salad, appetizer and dessert), open
    bar, lots of hors d'eovres, 4 piece band, roses in all the bouquets,
    champagne toast, two limousines, large cake, moderate priced dress and
    it ran around $70/person.  The reception was held at a country club
    with lots of room to dance. I did nothing myself except organize
    everything and shop around for good prices.  If the first wedding did
    nothing themselves they still would only have paid around $30 -
    $40/person. 
    
    Just trying to show that there are places you can have fancy weddings
    at a much lower cost than $100/person.  But again this is in NH.
    Prices in Boston are much higher.
    
    Of course one could have their reception at Levi Lowells in Merrimack
    and pay aroudn $45/person just for the food :-)  But in my eyes
    that's a bit extravagant!!!                      
    
    Suzanne
    
    P.S.  I've helped several friends with weddings, that's why I may
    sound like a walking wedding quoter.
    

    When looking at these weddings costs, I choke! I wonder how many people
    invited to any wedding are really social debts being paid back by the
    parents. Recently my wife and I were going over our wedding album, and
    out of 200 plus people, we really only gave a damn about maybe 3 or
    4 tables, the rest being parental debts (but since they picked up the
    tab, they had that right). If we were to do it over again, all we would
    have had are the friends and family **we** REALLY cared about, and to
    hell with parental social debts!
    
    Eric

    good grief I can't beleive the talk of $ per person for a wedding.
    This is why I wrote the base note. You people are pricing a wedding
    like a new car. Yes, *receptions* are pricy. But a *wedding* costs
    no more than a preacher/JP, a licence, blood test and a lifetime
    of commitment. 
    
    Since I posted the base note I've talked to many different people
    and come to the following conclusions:  You'll never convince "1st
    timers" that there is any other way to get married than the whole
    9 yards, the big show. Most every one that has done the big show
    would not repeat it, many now realize it was a mistake to waste
    such sums of money. People getting married again keep the
    wedding/reception small, not because a second marriage should not
    be celebrated as grandly, but because they know they will not be
    missing out on anything by foregoing the show.

    Gail

    A colleague of my sister's had a large wedding because her father
    told her that she could get more presents that way.
    
    What's wrong with this picture?
    
    Judi
    

Re: .42

    I have  several  friends  who think the big wedding they had was a
    wonderful  event.  I  sometimes  wish  I  could go to their houses
    without  seeing  yet  more  pictures or videotapes of the wedding.
    They clearly think a big party was a good idea. I like the idea of
    celebrating with one's friends.

--David

    

    Ian,
    
    Could you explain a bit further what you mean by your remark
    on blood tests? The blood test most commonly used in the United
    States is one for syphillis. What sort are you talking about?
    
    and in general...
    
    When I married (low these many years ago :-) ), we chose not to
    have a sit down dinner at all. We had a reception with hors d'oeuvres
    and an open bar under a tent in my parents back yard. This made
    a sigificant savings.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Bonnie,
    
    Yes I know what the blood test is for, but I personally (and my
    wife - we discussed the issue before we married, because we thought
    New Hampshire required a blood test too) both consider it an insult
    to human dignity to have to be proven healthy before the state will
    condescend to permit you to exchange vows.
    
    I am always reminded of the Stud Book practices of testing bulls
    for infectious conditions before they are used to fertilize cows.
             
    (a) if you don't trust each other then you have no basis for a
    marriage.
    
    (b) if either fail the test you may well live together anyway so
    the test is futile.
                       
    (c) I consider this very similar to the situation where Britain
    imposed virginity tests on women fiancees coming to Britain to marry
    -- this practice was stopped after a public outcry. It is time the
    US stopped its equal invasion of personal privacy. 
    
             
    /. Ian .\                                         
    

    Ian,
    
    I'm sorry you feel that way. The reason why people are tested for
    syphillis is not to invade their privacy, however. It is to prevent
    blindness in children. Before the blood tests were required, many
    many babies were born blind with congenital syphillis. No other
    VDs are tested for.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Fair enough Bonnie, lets close the rat-hole.
    
    Incidentally at the time of our engagement, and in the context of
    our objection, plans were being mooted, in New Hampshire, and
    elsewhere, to include AIDS testing in the pre-marriage blood test.
    Prominent amongst the objectors at the time was the state ACLU
    [chapter?]
    
    /. Ian .\

Back to the topic....the thought of spending $10K-$20K for a wedding
really makes me cringe...e gadz. We recently got married and paid a
grand total of $60 including the license (well okay it cost about
$10 to have breakfast). If we had $10K to spend we would have gone to 
Australia for our honeymoon. But the Blue Ridge Mountains weren't bad
for a seconfd choice :-). Anyway, if I had it to do over again I'd do
it the same way.

Jenna

by the way, Marge, I didn't throw up ;-).

    Re .47 (Ian)
    
    >(b) if either fail the test you may well live together anyway so the
    >test is futile. 

    In fact, how many people in the US today have not had sex with each
    other before marriage?  If the couple have, chances are that they
    already *both* have the disease.  Treatment may be advisable, but
    preventing the marriage isn't going to stop anything.
    
    BTW, these tests were not to prevent children from being born with
    congenital syphillis - they were to prevent the poor, innocent man
    from being subjected to a horrible disease by a harlot wife.  Note
    that several states, require (or used to) tests only for the woman.
    
    Elizabeth

    Elisabeth, could you share where did you saw that? In all my 
    years of teaching Biology the only reason for requiring the 
    Wasserman test before marriage that I recall was for preventing 
    infant blindness. This had been a serious public health problem 
    before the law was passed. (It is for the same reason that doctors 
    put silver nitrate in the eyes of the new born. To prevent blindness 
    if they happen to be exposed to syphllis in the birth canal.
    
    Bonnie

Well, this is a real digression; but my memory differs from Bonnie's here.
My understanding was that silver nitrate was to prevent blindness from 
exposure to gonorrhea at birth, not to syphillis.  Does congenital syphillis
cause blindness, too?

So as to say something about the real topic here:  I'm astonished, too, at 
what people pay for weddings.  When we were married, we had a picnic in the
field next to the Bogue Street Bridge on the MSU campus.  Lynne calligraphed
the invitations (they said "bring food instead of gifts").  We had a couple
dozen of our friends; my parents brought a cake; everyone had a nice afternoon;
and our only worry was whether it would rain.  Our only expense was the wedding
rings; and our "honeymoon" was a drive around the Upper Peninsula a few weeks
later, when we'd finished up with graduation and moving.

Years later, I look back, and I listen to people's stories of their own 
weddings ... and I wouldn't change a bit of the way we did it!

	-Neil	

    ooops, right Neil, silver nitrate is for gonorrhea, but I still
    think that the Wasserman test was for a similar purpose. Maybe
    we should move this to another note if we want to continue.
    
    Back to the regularly scheduled note.
    
    Bonnie

    I got it from reading up on the laws' history before I got married. The
    law requiring the test was repealed between my Mother's last marriage
    and mine - both in Colorado.  Those were the arguments used by the
    proponents of the law.  Consider, if it's really for the benefit of
    future children, why only test the bride-to-be, and not the
    husband-to-be as well?  After all, either of them can bring disease
    into the marriage, and transfer it to future children with identical
    results. 
    
    FWIW, congenital syphilis can cause a myriad of trouble, blindness is
    one of such.  Other things are problems with the bone structure,
    insanity, retardation, and early death. 
    
    Elizabeth

I haven't read all the notes in this string, but, having just come 
back from my cousin's wedding, I have a few thoughts.  The base note 
said that it is a shame that people put so much thought into a showy 
wedding and not much thought into the union itself.  Although I agree 
with this, I feel that it is also a shame that there _are_ things that 
people can do with their weddings that would make a real difference to 
people.  And it's not the expensive dress, the food, or the band; it's 
the terminology and activities that are chosen for the ceremony and 
the reception.

The main thought is that weddings are miserable experiences for most
lesbian and gay people.  (I feel comfortable generalizing, since I
have gotten this information from many of my gay friends, not just
me.)  Some of my friends just don't go to weddings.  Some will only go 
to the ceremony or just to the reception.  

Although I like weddings in general, I find the ceremonies to be
extremely oppressive.  There tends to be lots of talk about "men being
made for women/women being made for men."  In the wedding I went to,
the priest even snuck in the "pulled Adam's rib to create a 'helper'
for him" story into his sermon.  It is just such an oppressively
heterosexual festival (most times).  When the band started, the
wedding party danced, and the lead singer said, "Okay, everyone, let's
get up and join in on all the love going on up here."  But we all know
he meant "heterosexual love."   There is no room to breath at these 
all-day affairs, no hint that same-sex love _exists_, nevermind that 
it is "okay."

And the rigid gender role stuff is hard to take.  The women and girls
are at their frilliest and the men and boys are at their dapper-est.
Men chase garter belts (sex) and women titter at the thought of
catching the bouquet (romance).  Aunt Bitsy wants to know why your not
dancing when there are all these good looking, single "girls"
available.  "What it is to be a man/woman" is pounded into the
celebrants by word and by activity, relentlessly, throughout the
ceremony and reception. 

True Story: My relatives were all relieved when Dina--who was giving
a reading at the ceremony--showed up in a dress, because, after all,
she is..."non-traditional." (When he ["maiden"] name was announced, my
mother leaned over to me and said, "She kept her name!")  The
tradition police have a field day at weddings, and, if you don't think
that gender roles and heterosexuality are "enforced," take a closer
look at weddings. 

As a final note: I understand that not everyone reading this file 
would agree that it is a good thing to imply that gay relationships 
are "okay" during a wedding.  But just consider the number of 
"liberal" and "progressive" people who spend more time thinking about 
the clothes, the food, and where Aunt Bitsy is sitting than about how 
they can use words and activities that would make non-traditional 
members of their family and extended family feel more included in the 
ceremony.  It can be done.

I also have a copy of a very thoughtful essay by a woman who decided
that, since not all members of society are allowed to get married (gay
people aren't), she did not want to support the system by getting
married herself.  If you want a copy of the article, let me know.  I'm 
not sure that one needs to make that kind of a sacrifice for a cause, 
but I admire her conviction.

							--Ger

    
    much of what .56 says also applies to aesthetes and celebates.
    
    I am the eldest of a large group of cousins of similar age (22 cousins
    with only a 6 year age spread) in a fairly large family clan (I
    confounded the lot of them by getting married in America and not
    telling them... :-) Wedding receptions were indeed pergatory with
    *all* the older generation females trying their d**nedest to get me 
    paired off. The constant "sympathy" my parents received because they 
    weren't grandparents yet must have been trying for them too.
    
    Still at least in Britain we don't have the aberrant behaviour implicit
    in "feeding each other [the cake]" or fetishist behaviour with garters
    (though the departing bride does usually throw her bouquet to the
    crowd as the happy couple drive off after the ceremony...)
    
    I eventually found the perfect cover though: I always took a camera,
    and whenever I was 'wanted' by one of the aunts I'd be busy taking
    pictures...
                                                              
    /. Ian .\
    

    
    Interesting. I never thought of the garter bit as sexist, just incredibly
    tacky and tasteless. _NO ONE_ is going to stick their hand under
    my dress at _MY_ wedding :^)
    
    I play at a lot of weddings (especially this time of year), and
    I think a lot of the tacky stuff, some of which is the same stuff
    that I could see making gay people feel badly, seems to be fading
    away. I think maybe the reason is that people are waiting longer
    to get married, and a lot of that stuff (feeding the cake, announcing
    the couple, etc.) is pretty childish. Hopefully people become more
    sophisticated as they get older.
    
    
    Roberta

<    to get married, and a lot of that stuff (feeding the cake, announcing
<    the couple, etc.) is pretty childish. Hopefully people become more
<    sophisticated as they get older.
    
Actually, I thought that feeding each other the cake was symbolic of the
nurturing that you were going to do for one another in your union.
I reminded Shellie of this when we got married, in front of everyone, as
insurance that she wouldn't get any bright ideas about cramming it down my
throat.  :-)  Actually it is the stuffing it onto each others faces that I
find childish.  Although we had a lot of fun at our wedding, we still considered
the wedding to be an important occasion and we gave it a lot of respect.

I agree with Gerry that it can be very hard on gays (and celibates, etc)
to attend most weddings.  The last couple of weddings that Shellie and I
attended were very nice for us.  At the last one, most everyone knew that
we were gay and we did nothing to hide it.  There was also no dancing, which
helped.  At the other one, two years ago, we were rather uncomfortable with
the dancing, especially me, and it was made a lot easier when the bride danced
with her sister and when another couple of females danced together - I believe
it may have been the mothers of the groom and bride.  After this then Shellie
and I danced together a little, although I was still uncomfortable.  Even if
the bride and groom don't have prejudices, it is hard to feel the eyes of the
others on you, and know that many of them are talking about you disapprovingly.
It was hard enough for us as two women; most people are worse about two men,
and might have even left the reception had they seen two men dancing.  Part of
the time you can say, "oh, well, it's THEIR problem", but when it is a day
that is so important to your friends, you tend to let homophobia rule because
you don't want to ruin their day for them.  Actually, most gays let homophobia
rule them all of the time, and would NEVER speak out, but that is better left
to another topic.

If I have confused anyone by my mention of my wedding, I was indeed married
to Michele/Shellie in 1986, after 2 years of being together.  The union of two
women, however, is not yet legally recognized.  It is not illegal, but it does
not give us any help on family memberships to the YMCA (so far they refuse to
recognize gay families), it does not help us in inheritance (they don't
recognize your spouse as next-of-kin), it does not help us with hospitals (only
recognized "family" can get into most ICU's or decide on your treatment if you
are incapable of making the decision yourself), etc, etc, etc. 

Our wedding cost about $2,500, if I remember correctly.  It was about $5,000
including the honeymoon trip to Hawaii.  We did not provide dinner, but had
cake and hors d'oeuvres, special napkins, invitations, wedding gownS, new 
shoes, church rental (most churches in town refused to allow us to rent their
church for the wedding, BTW), preachers' fees, plane costs to fly the clergy
out here from San Diego (good friends are clergy and did the ceremony, but we
paid them their normal fee).  Good friends made us our veils and a blown glass
ornament for the top of the cake (two women in long dresses, facing each other
holding hands under an arch, doves on the arch).  In addition, another good
friend gave us the gift of being the photographer for the wedding.  He did
a fantastic job, as did the veilmaker and the glass blower.  Approximately 
100 people attended.              
                             Carol 

    
    	Does anyone know where the term "tying the knot" comes from?
    
    	Carla
    

    'tying the knot'
    
    in various cultures the couple were/are hand-fasted and tied together
    at the wrist to signify that they are one.  
    
    for example, when I knelt with my husband for our nuptial blessing, we
    joined hands and the priest removed the stole from around his neck and
    looped it around our wrists and hands.  after the blessing, when we
    stood again, the stole was unwound and returned.
    
    in earlier times the knot remained in place for the remainder of the
    day as a little reminder.
    
      Ann
    

    Hi, 
    
    I was married this past November 25th (almost 2 months).  Ed and I had 
    a big church wedding and reception.  Sure it was alittle expensive, but
    worth every penny.  We helped finance as well as my parents.  We were 
    lucky as we all felt this was the type of wedding we all wanted.  My
    parents recognized that it was "our" day and we wanted to share it all
    with them which meant having lots of their friends there as well as
    ours and family members on all sides.  By reading this file, I am
    surprized at how many people feel it's only their day and parents
    friends don't belong.  I disagree, as my parents friends are and will
    always be important to them - some were around before I was even
    {"thought"} of.  They just wanted to share the joy with their friends
    at a celebration reflecting the happiness they knew I was feeling with
    Ed as our life together began.  We have no regrets.  THe ceremony, I
    feel was the absolute beauty in every aspect.  It was simple, and
    beautiful.  The ceremony took only 20 minutes, began at 5:00 p.m. and
    completed at 5:20 p.m.  We had a simple candle light service.  My
    Prodestant Church has a veryyyy loooong isle and the beauty of the
    church added to the beauty of our commitment.  Candles
    were at the ends of each pews, as well as 6 candle arbers at the alter, 
    we had a soloist who sang 3 songs, "The Wedding Song" as Ed's Mom was 
    escorted, and then my Mother escorted by my 2 brothers.  After our vows, 
    A GIFTOF LOVE was sung.  And after we lite our unity candle, and knelt 
    down, the Lord's Prayer was sung.  Then Ed's Catholic Priest said a prayer
    and my Minister completed with the benediction.  My memories of the
    love we were expressing will always be within my heart - as our life
    together began in the witness of our Lord, our family and friends.  Ed
    and I both feel the ceremony was the most important part of our day. 
    The specialness is very hard to express.  Though My heart will always
    treasure every detail and word spoken or felt.  
    
    Our reception was fun, and beautiful, though we do only wish we had
    more time.  THe photograper was sick, but showed up, though his
    "timing" was off and distrubed us needlessly while we were "trying" to
    socialize.  The Wedding Ceremony was and will always be OURS, and the
    reception, was actually for all those who came to witness our
    beginning.  All told me the Ceremony was simply beautiful and the
    warmest they remember and that they had a wonderful time at the
    reception.  
    
    A note to all those planning, if the reception is large, don't worry if
    you are not able to "speak" to everyone.  They understand and enjoy
    themselves emmencely with those friends with and around them.  Those
    are words from those I asked and had worried about after.  I had a very
    nice time and feel wonderful that others told me it was "All"
    wonderful.  
    
    Again, the ceremony for me and my husband was our special special
    moment, which we will forever share as our love matures and grows
    within each day. 
    
    God Bless, 
    
    - Christina

    
    Well, I came to this notes conference for inspiration on my marriage
    ceremony - and gosh, I got it!!  Somewhere in my wildest dreams, before
    I met the man, I imagined myself getting married in a special way - on
    a mountaintop and both of us were wearing Tuxedos...I still haven't
    quite discerned what the symbolism is (on top of the world, equality,
    a black tux instead of the white dress!...)
    
    I went to sooo many "gag me with a spoon" weddings where I dropped off
    the gift, got to spend 20 seconds talking to the bride or the groom,
    and then sat around with zillions of people that were in the same
    situation trying to have a good time.  Almost every wedding - I
    overheard one or the other partner heard sighing "I can't wait til this
    is over".  Even when they swore they were having a good time!  It
    appears that the pressure of the culmination of activity made it
    difficult for them to be comfortable.  I've seen enough of these
    scenes to know what I want - and it is my first time through!
    
    I also have said to more than one bride, "if you'd spend half this
    preparation time with the partner contemplating the present and
    future...or just having FUN...".  And here I am making sure that we
    don't spend alot of time on something that is turning out to be an
    excuse for us to get the family out to Colorado and have a great time.
    
    Our parents and sisters (and hopefully their husbands) are coming out
    to Colorado.  We're driving up to the Rocky Mountain National Park.  I
    rented a big house for 3 days.  We getting married somewhere in the
    park and spending the rest of the time "bonding" and visiting the Park.
    
    Then the sisters and their husbands will head home - they have work
    schedules and little vacation.  And we will head west with the parents
    to visit Canyonlands in Utah.  How's that for a honeymoon!
    
    I also came to this conference for inspiration on the wedding ceremony
    itself.  I am working on writing it and once read some examples in an
    older version of this conference.  If you know of discussions on this
    topic, please point me in the direction.
    
    I have been struggling with the part where I want to share the fact
    that I am doing this with my friends, but I don't want them to do
    anything silly for it - like buying me anything.  I have told a couple
    of people who felt compelled to ask what I want - to pick out, or better
    yet write, some poetry.  Considering some of my friends, that should be
    interesting.
    
    
    bd

    more info on planning weddings and so forth can be found at:
    
    Womannotes-V1
    30 - nonsexist wedding ideas wanted
    707 - wedding ideas needed
    
    Human_Relations
    334 - need help on planning a wedding
    354 - customizing wedding vows
    
    -Jody
    

    
    i really *hate* weddings.
    
    

    re .65
    
    It's an invitation that one is not obligated to accept.
    
    I hate *large, excessive* weddings, where the goal seems to lie in
    gaining the most gifts.
    
    I like weddings which reflect the couple's style and is a celebration
    of their commitment to each other.
    
    I *hate* wedding junk mail!  (No, I do not want a 20' purple limo!)
    
    Judi
    

RE: JWHITE

I don't really care for them either.  At least the ones where you have to get 
all dressed up, then the ceremony, then reception where everyone sits at their
table, there's dancing to a traditional type wedding band....I guess I just 
can't stand the "traditional" ones.

Now if someone got married on the beach, and had a reception there where you 
could play in the water....that would be cool.

Lisa

    re: .67: no pun intended, of course. :-)
    
    ed

Nope, that response is one of the more straightforward ones I've written...

=)


Lisa