Why the NYT Shouldn’t Celebrate Weddings

I have a subscription to the Sunday New York Times. With the exception of the sports section, I read the paper front to back. My least favorite part of the paper is the Style section. I may soon be adding the Style section to the discard pile for two reasons: weddings/celebrations.

The last few pages of the Style section is titled Weddings/Celebrations and highlights upcoming weddings or those who were just wed. I don’t know what criteria the paper uses to pick those who will be featured but I find all of the entries a little nauseating. Let me explain.

Each entry has a snapshot of the smiling couple with their names on top of the picture. For straight couples, the woman’s name is on top. I don’t know how they order the names of same sex couples because some seem to be listed alphabetically by first name while others are listed by last name. Not being able to identify how the top name gets picked is frustrating. If this is a telling piece of information I want to know about it.

Their story begins with a brief bio, where the wedding will take place and who is officiating. Here you get to see how many men have three first names or whether they were considered important enough to be given the family name. None of the men in today’s paper were seconds. Two were IIIs. Next they give the name of each of their parents. It seems that all the highlighted couples know who their dads are, and in fact, all their dads seem to be married to their moms. Maybe to make it into the paper you have to prove you’re not a bastard. The opening paragraph ends with the name of who will be officiating and the type of religious ceremony to be observed. Compromises on religious ceremonies shows how inclusive each couple wants to be. One couple chose the cheap route of a wedding in the Muncipial Building of NY but wanted to incorporate some of the rich Jewish traditions in the ceremony. Another couple's ceremony will incorporate both Jewish and Greek orthodox traditions. Jewish guilt?

The bio of the couple continues with their age and where they went to college. Nobody went to community college or technical school. A good portion of them had advanced degrees and graduated cum laude. I wonder what the average school loan debt this group of couples had? I don’t begrudge them having the benefit of parents who were able to pay for their college but I don’t need it spelled out in the newspaper. What to do after graduation? Get a great job, of coarse.

I did not see any short order cooks, retail associates or receptionists among the group. Maybe this is an off week and most other weeks include a much wider variety of careers. Instead, the group included doctors, lawyers, banking professionals, portfolio managers, advertising execs and directors of corporate communications. Would it kill them to include the announcement of the billion dollar heir to the world’s biggest oil company marrying the young buxom mall perfume girl?

Woman libbers of the world probably cut out and hang the entries I find the most irritating. Some of the women declare how they will be referred as after they are wed. One female doctor will “continue to use her name professionally.” Another says she will be “keeping her name.” Well no one asked you to give it away, Irene. I don’t even like your name. Another bride Erin will be taking her husband’s name. Feminist won’t be happy with that Erin. Then there is the couple who took compromising to the next level of absurdity. This couple decides they will not only take each other’s name, but will take a combination of the other’s family’s name. I’m not kidding. Her maiden last name is Luther and she will be known as Ms. Luther Hillman. Hillman is derived from their mothers’ maiden names, Hill (hers) and Freeman (his). Notice they didn’t use their mother’s married names. He will be known as Mr. Siracusa Hillman. Siracusa is his last name. There are a lot of choices one can make when getting married in regards to their last name but to use a combination of their mothers’ maiden names? This is going waaaaayyy to far.

The part I really don’t understand about these entries is why they give so much background information about the couple’s parents. They provide names, birth cities and occupations. If the announcement is suppose to be about the special day for the bride and the groom, why should there be any focus on the parents? Granted the parent’s did make them, grow them and send them out to the world with a paid for education, but enough is enough. I thought at first this was part of the bigger problem of how so much of weddings are about the person’s family. But then I rememberd they include their parents name because they are the one’s paying for the wedding. So kids have to give a shout out so they can have an open bar. You gotta give it to the kids. They know how to play the game. If they give a special note about how they grew up in a loving and supportive home and they would be nothing without their parents, do the couples also get a down payment on their first house?

I don’t think these wedding announcements are needed. And in the interest of being fair and balanced, shouldn’t they also include entries about divorces and settlements? Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a picture of the home wrecker who broke up the marriage and how much the new piece of ass set the groom back? But I must admit one entry caught my attention. A former assistant press secretary for the national media for the Bush-Cheney campaign is marrying the current senior counsel for Jo Biden. Talk about reaching across the aisle. Mary Matalin and James Carville watch out.