A Wedding In The Heartland
This week one of my wife's close friends got married. We hosted the bride, groom & 2 other women for a couple nights, attending the wedding itself on Saturday.
Two notable matters arose during the week related to the wedding, specifically the vows. What is more personal than the statement of wedding vows. Most of us, the lazy like myself, accept the vows proffered by the officiant. The theory goes something like “there’s so much other stuff going on that this is just another detail requiring time and focus not possible during the ramp-up to the wedding.” Turns out, other folks actually think about the words they’re going to say.
Saturday before the wedding, the bride expressed her deeply held belief that marriage should be between "any 2 people willing to commit to it." She also told us that she planned to have a statement to that effect in the vows. She asked us how we thought that would go over. I told her that, while I agree with her position, this is Kansas and there's a minister / priest involved, so there's a couple wrinkles to work out. She said she fervently believed that if the expression of her belief in this setting opened just 1 person's mind it would be worth it (aside from it's inherent value to the bride and groom, of course). Hard to argue against that. And the fact that that belief is getting additional press here can only be a supplemental benefit, right?
In the interim there was a scuffle with the officiant, reluctant to be party to an expression outside her accepted religious beliefs. I could go on here for about a hundred pages with a “who the hell does that priest / minister think they are imposing their beliefs on these folks,” but that would take all day. (NOTE TO READERS: If you’ve got a thought on that subject, I‘d be willing to have a written dialogue about that here, so please share your thoughts . . . at your peril!). In the end, after some prodding, language almost identical to what the bride wanted made the final cut; I noticed immediately, while my wife did not. My In-Laws also noticed and mentioned it to me.
The second interesting item that made it into the vows was a statement that each of the bride and groom would “support the other in the pursuit of their art.” Each being artists (she a photographer, he a – OK, I don’t know), there’s nothing outwardly odd about that, but I did find it notable – and quite appropriate.
All in all, a thought provoking wedding, more so than usual (except for the Ethiopian Orthodox Catholic service we attended years ago – but that’s a whole other story).
Congrats Lex and Paula! Best wishes for the future!
This week one of my wife's close friends got married. We hosted the bride, groom & 2 other women for a couple nights, attending the wedding itself on Saturday.
Two notable matters arose during the week related to the wedding, specifically the vows. What is more personal than the statement of wedding vows. Most of us, the lazy like myself, accept the vows proffered by the officiant. The theory goes something like “there’s so much other stuff going on that this is just another detail requiring time and focus not possible during the ramp-up to the wedding.” Turns out, other folks actually think about the words they’re going to say.
Saturday before the wedding, the bride expressed her deeply held belief that marriage should be between "any 2 people willing to commit to it." She also told us that she planned to have a statement to that effect in the vows. She asked us how we thought that would go over. I told her that, while I agree with her position, this is Kansas and there's a minister / priest involved, so there's a couple wrinkles to work out. She said she fervently believed that if the expression of her belief in this setting opened just 1 person's mind it would be worth it (aside from it's inherent value to the bride and groom, of course). Hard to argue against that. And the fact that that belief is getting additional press here can only be a supplemental benefit, right?
In the interim there was a scuffle with the officiant, reluctant to be party to an expression outside her accepted religious beliefs. I could go on here for about a hundred pages with a “who the hell does that priest / minister think they are imposing their beliefs on these folks,” but that would take all day. (NOTE TO READERS: If you’ve got a thought on that subject, I‘d be willing to have a written dialogue about that here, so please share your thoughts . . . at your peril!). In the end, after some prodding, language almost identical to what the bride wanted made the final cut; I noticed immediately, while my wife did not. My In-Laws also noticed and mentioned it to me.
The second interesting item that made it into the vows was a statement that each of the bride and groom would “support the other in the pursuit of their art.” Each being artists (she a photographer, he a – OK, I don’t know), there’s nothing outwardly odd about that, but I did find it notable – and quite appropriate.
All in all, a thought provoking wedding, more so than usual (except for the Ethiopian Orthodox Catholic service we attended years ago – but that’s a whole other story).
Congrats Lex and Paula! Best wishes for the future!
posted by Bob at 8:17 AM
1 Comments:
Hey brother... I think that sounds pretty interesting. My friends and I have discussed the whole personalized vows versus traditional ones and I have to agree that personal ones seem a little more special. I think it´s neat she took that step, and although you know I´m pretty dedicated to my faith, I don´t think the minister has much of a place telling her what she should say... I don´t know said it, but I love that quote about how I may not agree with what you say but I´ll fight to the death to ensure you can say it... Anyways... there´s my two cents from your little sis. ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home