Destination Weddings -- Thoughts?

[Aggie414]

Some people will decry that opinion, yet the truth is destination weddings are often a true financial burden on those “expected” to attend, and they essentially force loved ones to travel to a location that often is not a place they would ever choose to go–and oftentimes older loved ones cannot fly, or will not fly, which puts them outside attending. /QUOTE]

I saw a lot of your post that I could agree with, but this little part I wanted to offer another side to. As I said in my post, in the case of my family, if they couldn’t fly/travel, then they wouldn’t be able to attend my wedding no matter if I had it at my home parish. Unless I had my wedding where they live (which would be a destination wedding), then they wouldn’t be able to come anyway. I’ve made a life for myself where I live which, as I said, is about three hours away from most of my immediate family. I would want to have my wedding here where I live, where the priest that I know could marry me. They’d have to travel anyway. It’s not only destination weddings that cause people to travel. My sister got married in Virginia (we live in Texas). That’s where her husband is from so they got married where he grew up. We had to travel. One sister couldn’t make it – not because of financial reasons but because she had just given birth to a baby. Life happens.

 

[irishpatrick]

irishpatrick;10885284:

Some people will decry that opinion, yet the truth is destination weddings are often a true financial burden on those “expected” to attend, and they essentially force loved ones to travel to a location that often is not a place they would ever choose to go–and oftentimes older loved ones cannot fly, or will not fly, which puts them outside attending. /QUOTE]

I saw a lot of your post that I could agree with, but this little part I wanted to offer another side to. As I said in my post, in the case of my family, if they couldn’t fly/travel, then they wouldn’t be able to attend my wedding no matter if I had it at my home parish. Unless I had my wedding where they live (which would be a destination wedding), then they wouldn’t be able to come anyway. I’ve made a life for myself where I live which, as I said, is about three hours away from most of my immediate family. I would want to have my wedding here where I live, where the priest that I know could marry me. They’d have to travel anyway. It’s not only destination weddings that cause people to travel. My sister got married in Virginia (we live in Texas). That’s where her husband is from so they got married where he grew up. We had to travel. One sister couldn’t make it – not because of financial reasons but because she had just given birth to a baby. Life happens.

I agree completely, and that is why I am not taking an absolute position. I am speaking of the many cases in which the couple chooses to have a destination wedding when staying home would allow for their loved ones to attend without any real burden.

 

[PatriceA]

irishpatrick;10885284:

Some people will decry that opinion, yet the truth is destination weddings are often a true financial burden on those “expected” to attend, and they essentially force loved ones to travel to a location that often is not a place they would ever choose to go–and oftentimes older loved ones cannot fly, or will not fly, which puts them outside attending. /QUOTE]

I saw a lot of your post that I could agree with, but this little part I wanted to offer another side to. As I said in my post, in the case of my family, if they couldn’t fly/travel, then they wouldn’t be able to attend my wedding no matter if I had it at my home parish. Unless I had my wedding where they live (which would be a destination wedding), then they wouldn’t be able to come anyway. I’ve made a life for myself where I live which, as I said, is about three hours away from most of my immediate family. I would want to have my wedding here where I live, where the priest that I know could marry me. They’d have to travel anyway. It’s not only destination weddings that cause people to travel. My sister got married in Virginia (we live in Texas). That’s where her husband is from so they got married where he grew up. We had to travel. One sister couldn’t make it – not because of financial reasons but because she had just given birth to a baby. Life happens.

I wouldn’t put your sister’s wedding in the category of “destination weddings”. If I go by your definition, I technically had a destination wedding as we got married in my husband’s home parish, an hour and half from my childhood parish, because his grandmother was not in the best of health. It was easier to ask most of my family to travel an hour or more to our wedding, otherwise my husband’s grandparents wouldn’t have been able to attend.

But when I think of “destination weddings” I think of a vacation spot, usually in an exotic location or resort area. A location that has no ties to any family member, other than its going to make for great pictures and provide a vacation or travel experience for all involved.

Just because some or most of the guest list has to travel to a wedding doesn’t automatically equate to “destination wedding” in my mind.

 

[irishpatrick]

Aggie414;10885354:

I wouldn’t put your sister’s wedding in the category of “destination weddings”. If I go by your definition, I technically had a destination wedding as we got married in my husband’s home parish, an hour and half from my childhood parish, because his grandmother was not in the best of health. It was easier to ask most of my family to travel an hour or more to our wedding, otherwise my husband’s grandparents wouldn’t have been able to attend.

But when I think of “destination weddings” I think of a vacation spot, usually in an exotic location or resort area. A location that has no ties to any family member, other than its going to make for great pictures and provide a vacation or travel experience for all involved.

Just because some or most of the guest list has to travel to a wedding doesn’t automatically equate to “destination wedding” in my mind.

I quoted and responded to the part about the sister’s wedding…that was not from me.

 

[Phemie]

Are you sure this is the case? I find it stunning that a bishop would, or even a priest, would recommend that the couple proceed with an invalid and illicit act.

I think you’ve led a sheltered life. This was the same bishop who, when approached by a politician’s ADC before another politician’s funeral and asked whether his boss could receive Communion although he wasn’t Catholic, replied, “Pretend you never asked this question.” Politician received Communion.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I think you’ve led a sheltered life.

Did you ever see the “Bad New Bears.” You know what they say about “assume.”

Given that I was a musician that hung around with the wild crowd, I’ve lived anything but a sheltered life.

This was the same bishop who, when approached by a politician’s ADC before another politician’s funeral and asked whether his boss could receive Communion although he wasn’t Catholic, replied, “Pretend you never asked this question.” Politician received Communion.

You should have qualified the statement in the original post stating that we are dealing with a renegade bishop in the first place, rather than accusing someone of living a sheltered life first.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I agree, and that is why I did not say that it was wrong in all cases. However, in a great many cases the couple chooses to have a destination wedding because THEY want it for THEM, with little deep reflection on God, family and loved ones.

I’m not comfortable making this into a hierarchy, but if I really had to:

1. God/the couple (the sacrament)
2. The couple (this is about them, the celebration of their love for each other and God after all, so they should be taking control over who to invite/not invite, choosing readers/prayers, the reception venue and the accompanying food and music when applicable, the traditions to follow or not follow, etc.)
3. Family, friends
4. Others of the faith

It’s not as simple as just laying out a simple hierarchy like that and subordinating all to those above them, though.

If I understand you correctly, your objection has to do with a hypothetical scenario like the following: Bride and Groom live in Boston, where Bride’s family and friends also reside. Groom’s family and friends live in Philadelphia. Bride and Groom want both sets of family and friends to be at their wedding, but they choose to have it in Hawaii because it will make for prettier photos. Is that selfish and immature? Yeah, it sure sounds like it! So even though I have the wishes of family and friends subordinate to those of the bride and groom in the list above, that sounds like a clear exception!!!

 

[irishpatrick]

I’m not comfortable making this into a hierarchy, but if I really had to:

1. God/the couple (the sacrament)
2. The couple (this is about them, the celebration of their love for each other and God after all, so they should be taking control over who to invite/not invite, choosing readers/prayers, the reception venue and the accompanying food and music when applicable, the traditions to follow or not follow, etc.)
3. Family, friends
4. Others of the faith

It’s not as simple as just laying out a simple hierarchy like that and subordinating all to those above them, though.

If I understand you correctly, your objection has to do with a hypothetical scenario like the following: Bride and Groom live in Boston, where Bride’s family and friends also reside. Groom’s family and friends live in Philadelphia. Bride and Groom want both sets of family and friends to be at their wedding, but they choose to have it in Hawaii because it will make for prettier photos. Is that selfish and immature? Yeah, it sure sounds like it! So even though I have the wishes of family and friends subordinate to those of the bride and groom in the list above, that sounds like a clear exception!!!

Not quite. Here is the scenario:

Bride lives in Town A.

Groom also lives in Town A.

Bride’s family and friends also live in Town A.

Groom’s family and friends also live in Town A.

Bride and Groom choose to go to Las Vegas (or any other far away destination) to have their wedding, just because THEY like the place and want to go there. Everyone else must now pay for travel, and secure time off work, to travel from Town A to Las Vegas (or any other far away destination) in order to attend the couple’s wedding. Some family members in Town A will not be able to afford to go, some might not be able to get the time off work, and some might be too old to travel such distances.

That scenario has become a trend, with many couples choosing to do exactly that.

IMO–narcissistic.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Bride and Groom choose to go to Las Vegas (or any other far away destination) to have their wedding, just because THEY like the place and want to go there. Everyone else must now pay for travel, and secure time off work, to travel from Town A to Las Vegas (or any other far away destination) in order to attend the couple’s wedding. Some family members in Town A will not be able to afford to go, some might not be able to get the time off work, and some might be too old to travel such distances.

That scenario has become a trend, with many couples choosing to do exactly that.

IMO–narcissistic.

Isn’t that what a honeymoon is for???

 

[Aggie414]

I want to start out by saying that I think it’s important to always keep family/friends’ thoughts and desires in mind when planning a wedding, but it does reach a point where you can’t please everyone. I’m not specifically talking about destination weddings either. I once had a friend who was trying to set her wedding date and everybody kept having a conflict and telling her she couldn’t do it this date, this date, this date because something so much more important was going on. Finally my friend and her fiance just said, “We’re getting married this date. If you can’t come, we’ll miss you.”

I know that’s the rare instance but sometimes you just have to make plans and just accept the fact that not everyone can come either because of finances or schedule or illness/age.

 

[irishpatrick]

Isn’t that what a honeymoon is for???

Yes. At least traditionally that was so.

 

[irishpatrick]

I want to start out by saying that I think it’s important to always keep family/friends’ thoughts and desires in mind when planning a wedding, but it does reach a point where you can’t please everyone. I’m not specifically talking about destination weddings either. I once had a friend who was trying to set her wedding date and everybody kept having a conflict and telling her she couldn’t do it this date, this date, this date because something so much more important was going on. Finally my friend and her fiance just said, “We’re getting married this date. If you can’t come, we’ll miss you.”

I know that’s the rare instance but sometimes you just have to make plans and just accept the fact that not everyone can come either because of finances or schedule or illness/age.

I agree, the couple should be able to plan their own wedding. I am just saying the new trend of destinations weddings, imo, is narcissistic.

Some couples will say, “no one is forced to come to our wedding,” yet those couples know full well that their loved ones will want to see them get married–it rapidly becomes a no choice guilt trip for people invited.

It is also troublesome that many young couples do not care whether people attend or not. No sense of family or community in that attitude.

And, what happens in cases where the parents cannot afford to go (perhaps they are still raising kids at home and need the money for them)? Or, what if parents just object to the location of a place like Las Vegas?

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree, the couple should be able to plan their own wedding. I am just saying the new trend of destinations weddings, imo, is narcissistic.

I don’t think they’re trying to be selfish. I think they’re trying to have a wedding at a place their guests will enjoy, too. They just sometimes don’t realize that not all of their friends and families can afford it.

 

[PatriceA]

I agree, the couple should be able to plan their own wedding. I am just saying the new trend of destinations weddings, imo, is narcissistic.

Some couples will say, “no one is forced to come to our wedding,” yet those couples know full well that their loved ones will want to see them get married–it rapidly becomes a no choice guilt trip for people invited.

It is also troublesome that many young couples do not care whether people attend or not. No sense of family or community in that attitude.

And, what happens in cases where the parents cannot afford to go (perhaps they are still raising kids at home and need the money for them)? Or, what if parents just object to the location of a place like Las Vegas?

The worse case scenario are the couples that care, very deeply and are just as deeply hurt, when their guests can’t afford to attend a destination wedding just because of the travel expenses. My cousin got married in England and was very, very upset that most of my mother’s side of the family just could not afford to fly over for the ceremony, including her siblings. It was just too expensive for them. There are still hurt feelings.

If a couple truly wants a destination wedding, they really must understand they may not have everyone at the ceremony that they invited. Unless they are independently wealthy and are springing for everyone’s expense, then that changes things a bit. But that’s not very likely to happen.

 

[irishpatrick]

I don’t think they’re trying to be selfish. I think they’re trying to have a wedding at a place their guests will enjoy, too. They just sometimes don’t realize that not all of their friends and families can afford it.

I think it is a very self-centered thing to do. It is not just a matter of money–it is also a matter that the couple has determine where their loved ones will spend vacation time, and when they will take time off work and use vacation time, and that their loved ones are actually expected to be thrilled with going to an unplanned location for a wedding. And, as I stated before, there are older people who just cannot travel, and that locks them out completely. In one case I know of, there are at least two very close and very loving people who will not be able to go…and others who just flat object to the idea of spending thousands for a wedding that is not their own.

Weddings are supposed to be a public/coimmunity/faith event.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Yes. At least traditionally that was so.

It’s as if the couple is starting their honeymoon before the wedding, and demanding that everyone else come along, with the actual ceremony and reception thrown in as an incentive.

Disgusting.

 

[irishpatrick]

It’s as if the couple is starting their honeymoon before the wedding, and demanding that everyone else come along, with the actual ceremony and reception thrown in as an incentive.

Disgusting.

That is a very accurate way to describe this trend.

 

[EasterJoy]

The worse case scenario are the couples that care, very deeply and are just as deeply hurt, when their guests can’t afford to attend a destination wedding just because of the travel expenses. My cousin got married in England and was very, very upset that most of my mother’s side of the family just could not afford to fly over for the ceremony, including her siblings. It was just too expensive for them. There are still hurt feelings.

If a couple truly wants a destination wedding, they really must understand they may not have everyone at the ceremony that they invited. Unless they are independently wealthy and are springing for everyone’s expense, then that changes things a bit. But that’s not very likely to happen.

Do not get me wrong! I think it is a terrible idea for all but the smallest weddings where the couple goes to the trouble to find out if anyone else is in love with their pet idea. I just think that at least some do not realize the truth you’re pointing out: that is, that it is entirely unrealistic to think that everyone shares the same “destination dreams” that the bridal couple does, let alone the same capacity to realize them.

IOW, it is an usually-awful idea that otherwise not-awful people might unwisely choose to follow.

 

[irishpatrick]

The worse case scenario are the couples that care, very deeply and are just as deeply hurt, when their guests can’t afford to attend a destination wedding just because of the travel expenses. My cousin got married in England and was very, very upset that most of my mother’s side of the family just could not afford to fly over for the ceremony, including her siblings. It was just too expensive for them. There are still hurt feelings.

If a couple truly wants a destination wedding, they really must understand they may not have everyone at the ceremony that they invited. Unless they are independently wealthy and are springing for everyone’s expense, then that changes things a bit. But that’s not very likely to happen.

I also think it is a current trend that will not remain. Twenty years from now will those couples look back and feel joy about having forced their destination wedding on those they love, and will they feel joy about the people who could not attend because of finances or being too old to travel?

 

[Aggie414]

I guess I just honestly don’t see a real problem with it – to each their own. Now, as someone said (I think it was the Real Julianne) people have to be aware that not everyone can attend if they have a destination wedding and they have to be okay with that.

I guess I’m just having such a hard time seeing what the problem is because people are going to have to travel even if it’s NOT a destination wedding because so many people are not living where they grew up. I could go back to my the area where I grew up if I got married BUT my parents (mom and step-dad) are not Catholic and they no longer live in my home town. So I wouldn’t have any ties to that parish. I could go to Louisiana where most of my extended/elderly family members live; but, again, I have no ties to any parish there though I do have some ancestral ties (which would be amazing – but, then my immediate family would have to travel from Texas); or I could get married here in the town where I live where my church parish is, where my priest knows my name; and everybody has to travel.

Like I said, if I had my way of doing things, I would have a very small Catholic marriage ceremony with just very immediate family members attending and then have my “wedding” at a destination location.