Pocket Sized Pastor*

Michelle Rodriguez is not the most stable celebrity on the face of the planet. She’s an alcoholic, she’s pretty violent, and she’ll go to extreme lengths to not-get-not-noticed by the paparazzi. We all know this. However, Michelle does bring up a good point when it comes to inviting people into your bridal party. If she behaves like Michelle Rodriguez did over the weekend, she probably shouldn’t be allowed to attend your wedding.

People tend not to take into consideration their wedding party’s member’s personal standards of behavior before they include them in their wedding. People don’t magically change just because they are placed in a situation where they’re given certain responsibilities or they’re suppose to act with some class. If a person misbehaves, has no class, or will push clothed guests into a pool, they’re not going to change just because they’re now wearing a bridesmaid dress. All they’re going to do is cause you problems.

My fiancee and I are keeping our wedding party very small. She’s having 1, I’m having one. Mine is my brother. Her’s is her best friend. These are both people we can trust and we are sure won’t break up a bachelorette party by yelling at the stripper, calling him fat and saying he has a small penis (though, in Michelle Rodriguez’s defense, the stripper did something incredibly tasteless but very typical in bachelorette parties and I fully support Michelle emasculating the fellow in front of others). If my brother was gonna be an imperfect person at my wedding, I wouldn’t have him in my wedding party. I don’t think that just because I’m getting married that anyone or anything should be assumed will happen. That leads to nonsense, drunken uncles falling into wedding cakes, and the bride and groom going on a bender and punching a cop in the face. There’s no need to bring a Michelle Rodriguez type character to your wedding unless you WANT her to act like they always do. And if you’re upset that they “ruined your wedding day”, I’m sorry but you invited them knowing what they usually do. What else could you expect?

My lovely fiancee received her first bridal magazine in the mail a few days ago. She was excited. She had ordered a couple a few months ago but they hadn’t arrived. She picked up a copy of Bridal Guide and, well, I read it first. She was busy on her computer and I wanted to see what these bridal magazines were all about.

I was flipping through and noticed that 95% of it contained ads for wedding dresses. Some were ok, most were bad, and I realized that I have a hard time looking at a wedding dress and figuring out what’s good/bad about it at first glance. I have to really study them. To me, they look like a white sheet at once and I tend to notice the woman wearing it before I notice what is actually being worn. Maybe I’ve developed an automatic mental process where I see a white gown, know its a wedding, and focus on who is getting married rather than on the dress that is getting married. Or maybe I just like looking at models and realizing which designers are high end just based on how attractive their models are. And I like looking at the ugly lighting, the waterfalls, and the stupid photoshoots where you can’t actually see the whole dress or the model is walking in a waterfall or something. If you’re getting married under a waterfall, spending $5000 dollars on your dress is probably not the smartest thing for you to do. Invest in a nice bikini and bolero.

But besides the dress ads, there was one ad that jumped out at me. It’s something I’ve noticed on bridal message boards and in blogs. People love monograms and I get why. It’s a way to personalize your wedding, show your unity as a couple, act as if you’re a member of the social and financial class that can afford monogram towels from LL Bean. I get it. What I don’t necessarily get is the need bedazzle your monogram ontop of your wedding cake.

Ugly ugly ugly and completely unnecessary. I understand that I am not the target audience for these type of cake toppers. I also understand that I’m not the type of guy who likes to wear a bunch of bling to get noticed in a crowd (though my old punk jacket shows I’m not completely foreign to the idea) but I find bedazzled monogramed cake toppers to be pretty tacky. It’s another shiny thing in an event where shiny things seem to be overloaded by brides and grooms. I, personally, want the marriage ceremony, my bride, and me, to be the brightest thing in the room. I don’t want to be outdone by a tacky monogramed rhinestone covered cake topper. And I definetly don’t want to keep a piece of cake jewelry in my house as a memento of my wedding. It might serve as an effective nightlight or as light source to fend off zombies but it’s going to be pretty weird hanging on my wall next to pictures of my big day. It shouldn’t be the first thing that catches your eye. That should be a general rule for all wedding decorations. They shouldn’t outshine you and they shouldn’t attempt to outshine you either. All details are just that; details to enhance the reception or ceremony and not to overpower. A giant bedazzled monogramed cake topper shouts is just like waving a pair of keys in front of a toddler. It’s a distraction. Instead, the decorations should be simple, subtle, and a cake topper should be one of those things that people notice when they stop looking at you and start looking for food. Unless you want to blind your invitees hoping they won’t eat the food and they’ll be driven back to their cars from whence they came. If that’s true, then get two of these things. More power to ya.

Yes that is my real first and middle name

So my fiancee and I are thinking about our invitations.

And we’re looking at Costco.

But this invite from Married by the Sea (via manolobrides.com( might be an even better choice.

We had a little chat on the subway yesterday about how to word the invitation and we’re still not sure how to do it. Since we’re paying for the event (well, most of it), we want to start out the invitation saying “With our parents, Kate and Marc would be honored at your presence at our wedding” or something along those lines. The problem is with the initial “our”. It bothers my fiancee. It doesn’t read right to her. Why do we start the invitation saying “our” but then seem to refer to ourselves in the third person for the rest of the invitation? Do the people not receiving the invitation know who we are? Are we so distant from them that they need to hear our full name again? And if that’s true, why are we inviting them in the first place?

My fiancee thought about throwing in “with their parents” but that didn’t sound right either and I’m still confused about what exactly to say. Maybe invitations have moved beyond needing to sound “right” but rather have a set convention that should be continued until “our parents” starts to sound 100% correct as language evolves and changes. I dunno. What I do know, however, is that 100 bucks for 125 invites is a good deal which is why we’re sticking with simple invitations I believe. My only concern is the quality of the printing job since I’ve never seen a Costco printed invitation before. If it’s anything like their cakes (which I have eaten a lot of – you can’t attend a church and not end up eating Costco cake), it should be adequate for the job.

I just love the comment made about Uma Thurman’s engagement ring from this page.

The two have been engaged since June, when Busson presented Thurman with a diamond the size of North America, orbited by 20 smaller diamonds that have become trapped in its gravitational pull.