Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not interested in having a destination wedding, but I'm not sure I understand all the negative opinions about them. The way I look at it is: I'm getting married. I've always dreamed of getting married on a white sand beach, barefoot, with flowers in my hair, the ocean roaring in the background, sun shining, breeze cooling my face... my husband-to-be agrees. We live in Arizona, where there are no beaches. We're paying for our wedding. We decide to fulfill my dream and wed in [insert whatever destination]. We invite those who can to join us, if they'd like. If they want to come to [insert whatever destination], and can afford to, and have the vacation time, we will be so thrilled to see them there and have them partake in our special day. If they can't make it, we understand and we'll be happy as long as the two of us, and the minister/priest/rabbi shows up.
What's so selfish about that? The wedding day is about the bride and the groom. Everyone else is just there to support, and if you can't support with your presence, you can send your well wishes and prayers. *shrug* I just don't see the big deal.
(all hypothetical, btw. I don't live in Arizona, I'm not getting married and don't dream of a beach wedding. LOL)
Shrug. I have a large family with whom I'm pretty close. I felt bad enough asking people to travel from Nebraska, New Mexico and Iowa to California. It was important to me to have my family present, and I knew it was important to them too. Dreams of white sandy beaches are fine ... we went to Puerto Vallarta for our honeymoon. That dream was for us, not everybody else.
The OP is a family friend who was asked to officiate the wedding in another country. Opinions about destination weddings aside, that is asking too much.
The OP is a family friend who was asked to officiate the wedding in another country. Opinions about destination weddings aside, that is asking too much.
Not a family friend, but family member (as in sibling). I am a minister with an unemployed partner living in Southern California. After bills, food etc. there is not a lot left over.
The sibling runs their own consultancy and is marrying someone who also runs their own business. We have 1 vehicle with a loan and a motorcycle I bought used (no loan). They have multiple cars and multiple BMW motorcycles... see the difference here?
I did get a response back from my email. Basically "That's too bad you can't come, if you figure out a way, let me know".
We had a "destination" wedding without leaving town. We both come from large families who are scattered across the globe. We live in a destination location that is far away from all of our family. It's a second marriage for us so we didn't want a big wedding yet we wanted something more ceremonial and special than going to the Justice of the Peace. What to do?
We chose to invite only our immediate family and we paid all their travel expenses (flight, accommodations, car rentals) and most of their meals and entertainment (for a couple of days, after that they were on their own).
My mother did not come because she doesn't like to fly. My husband's teenage son didn't want to come because we wouldn't buy his girlfriend a ticket too. Aside from that, everyone seemed to think it was lovely. At least I did!
Shrug. I have a large family with whom I'm pretty close. I felt bad enough asking people to travel from Nebraska, New Mexico and Iowa to California. It was important to me to have my family present, and I knew it was important to them too. Dreams of white sandy beaches are fine ... we went to Puerto Vallarta for our honeymoon. That dream was for us, not everybody else.
The OP is a family friend who was asked to officiate the wedding in another country. Opinions about destination weddings aside, that is asking too much.
Agreed.
I have a large family as well, but I also view weddings as a celebration and it's no fun when only a handful of the people I care about can actually come.
And they are asking too much, if they want him to officiate they should pay his way. But, as he posted, they won't.
We had a destination wedding. We invited just our immediate family, and paid for all meals and hotel. They provided their own transportation. Worked for us.
I know others who have flown to their dream destination for an elopement (complete with great photos/video), honeymooned there, then had a big reception party for friends and family when they returned.
[quote=gvillesux;18203536]i can only say that those who hold destinatino weddings are thinking only of themselves. if you cannot afford to go there, then by all means let them know the ONLY way you will be able to attend or perform the ceremony is if they pay one or both of your expenses. honestly i would think they should pay yours, and you be responsible for your spouse's.[/quote]
I agree with this. I'm having a destination wedding and who I want to be there will be there because we're paying their expenses to attend. However not everyone is getting this treatment, only those involved in the wedding, parents, and siblings. Friends and distant relatives will have to pay their own expenses and if they're unable to attend, that's perfectly ok with me.
The people here who defend the practice of destination weddings are missing the point.
It's not a free choice, come if you feel like it, don't if you don't, situation, as they depict it. People feel an obligation, often a strong obligation, to attend a wedding they're invited to. This goes double or more if the bride or groom is a close family member. Asking someone to travel thousands of miles and spend thousands of dollars to get to your wedding isn't the same as calling someone up and asking if they feel like going to the movies tonight: they feel they are expected to attend, they expect people will feel bad and think less of them if they don't go, and consequently they will make major sacrifices to be there.
If you pretend otherwise you're just kidding yourself.
The people here who defend the practice of destination weddings are missing the point.
It's not a free choice, come if you feel like it, don't if you don't, situation, as they depict it. People feel an obligation, often a strong obligation, to attend a wedding they're invited to. This goes double or more if the bride or groom is a close family member. Asking someone to travel thousands of miles and spend thousands of dollars to get to your wedding isn't the same as calling someone up and asking if they feel like going to the movies tonight: they feel they are expected to attend, they expect people will feel bad and think less of them if they don't go, and consequently they will make major sacrifices to be there.
If you pretend otherwise you're just kidding yourself.
I could understand this if the wedding was down the block, but a destination wedding is a little different. The couple knows from the moment they decide to have a destination wedding that every person invited will not be able to attend. No one should feel bad that they can't afford to go. It's a recession and times are hard. Assuming the couple are both mature adults they understand this. However, the couple is not responsible for any self-inflicted pressure that a person has over their invite, they would most likely only expect the people who can truly afford to go to attend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisan23
Agreed.
I have a large family as well, but I also view weddings as a celebration and it's no fun when only a handful of the people I care about can actually come.
I feel the exact opposite, to me when I attend a large wedding I feel like that's impersonal. It's very doubtful that the couple has close friendships with all 300 guests at the wedding. If you come from a large family this may not be true, but for the rest of us it's very doubtful. It's most likely parents friends, church members, the lady who does your mom's hair etc. I personally think that it's more enjoyable to take the 10 people closest to you and go and have a great time. Stand there on the beach, looking into your beloved eyes and truly connect as you say your vows with the people who are truly happy for you. Again, this is a personal choice.
Being someone who works with numbers for a living, a large wedding just doesn't make sense to me. Depending on where you are getting married, it can be 5k just to have the ceremony. Which is only going to last 30 minutes at the most. Then you're going to have the reception, you have to decorate the venue and pay for everyone's food and drink. That's $50pp minimum (unless you have an afternoon wedding). Let's not forget the dress, that's anywhere from 1k - 10k. By the time it's all said and done, this couple could have put a very nice down payment on their dream home. To me, this is unbelievable, but if this is how you dreamed of your wedding and you can afford it, go for it. Just don't be like a friend of mine who's still paying for a wedding and he's no longer married to that person
I would never say to someone, you're spending 50 grand on your wedding are you nuts! No, I would smile and be there for them in whatever capacity I could and help them celebrate their day. The same should be said for destination weddings. If you can't afford to go to the actual ceremony, throw the bridal shower/bachelor party. But no one should feel bad because a big formal church wedding isn't their dream wedding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
