Nothing is Fiction

random musings. random stories. random characters. random conversations. random thoughts. random feelings. random.

Saturday, September 01, 2007

addendum to previous post and other wedding-related issues

dan says i get really amped up about certain issues and all the useless rules the catholic church has imposed on weddings seems to be my chosen "amped upper" these days. here is my latest beef with them: i attended a wedding today and my friend, edwin and i noticed how weirdly overaged the coin and ring bearer were. these were kids who were at least 12 years old (though they looked 14) and were way past the age to be considered cute. i didn't get it. adolescents carrying a heart-shaped cushion with rings and coins just looked very awkward and very wrong. shouldn't there be an age limit for these things? apparently, some churches seem to think the opposite. you cannot join the wedding entourage unless you've had your first communion. next thing you know, they're going to require flower girls to present their marriage certificates, too. which brings me to my next point.

now this i can't blame the church for. i don't know who started it or where it started, but apparently, there is this new addition to the wedding entourage called the "little bride." everyone had already seen it at least once before but today was my first time and i'm not sure if i've gotten over it quite yet. the "little bride" is a little girl that is dressed exactly like the bride. that's it. she has no other duties but to look like a mini version of the bride. this was very disturbing to me as it conjured up images of 80s (and way before that, too) iran, afghanistan, etc where parents were marrying their daughters at a really young age and there were 9-year old brides all over the place. the ridiculousness and tackiness of this whole concept was compounded by the fact that the little bride i saw today wasn't very little anymore. i can kind of (kind of) see how adorable it would be to see a little 3 or 4-year old running around in a white gown and veil but this one looked even older than the ring and coin bearer. protacio, who made the bride's gown divulged that the little bride's measurements were bigger than the bride's. of course the bride didn't look like she'd gained a pound from when she used to be a model at 14 but still...

speaking of models, the bride was a model, the groom was a model, the bridesmaids were all models. it was like sposabella (a bridal fashion show) or some shoot for wedding essentials. thank God for the few oversized ones in the entourage that were thrown into the mix. they made the thing look more real. i am happy for the newly-weds because their kids are never going to be fat or midgets but how is the average appearance of the world's population supposed to improve when attractive people will only reproduce with their kind? share the wealth.

on a less cynical note, i bawled at the pretty couple's wedding today, but it wasn't my fault. the groom started it. i never used to be affected by weddings. all my friends would get kilig (giggly is the best translation i can come up with) while i would sit and beg for the whole thing to be over so i can get to the reception* and eat already. today was different. my friend, ana, says that it's not mental but just biological. as a girl (or a woman, if you will), you reach a certain age... i can't even make myself finish the sentence. i am officially a marrying age. best wishes to all my friends getting hitched soon, but man, are you guys not freaked out? i'm freaked out FOR you. good luck with that.

_____

* receptions are called such because it is when the bride** and groom*** receive their guests. why do we do it the other way around? the guests always sit around waiting for an announcement asking them to stand up and applaud the newly-weds about to enter the room? more wedding planners should read "miss manners"
_____

** and *** did you know that you are only supposed to say "best wishes" to the bride? "congratulations" are only meant to be said to the groom

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

as if planning a wedding weren't difficult enough...

the catholic church (or at least the people who run it) must really want us to live in sin. how else would you explain the obstacle course that SOME churches in cebu have set up for those who want to get married?

obstacle 1: if your fiance/fiancee is not roman catholic, he/she has to convert to the religion as couples need to present their baptismal certificates before they can be wed. i believe this one applies to all churches not just some. this is not new, but it shocks me all the same.

obstacle 2: every single person of the wedding party is required to show their baptismal certificates before they can fulfill their assigned roles in the wedding.

what these rules say is that not only can you not marry anyone who is not roman catholic, you can't ask them to be part of your wedding party either. this kind of discrimination is just unfathomable to me at an age where wars are fought and genocides take place in the name of religion. way to be hip with the times, monsignors.

obstacle 3: all would-be ninongs and ninangs have to present their marriage certificates.

apparently, they do not only discriminate on the basis of religion now, but on marital status as well. old maids not allowed.

obstacle 4: have you noticed how brides have little boleros made with their wedding dresses now? or how ninangs take shawls with them to church? that would be courtesy of the rule that all members of the wedding party have to have their shoulders covered. i wonder if this applies to flower girls, too. oh, i hope so. we would not want those bare, provocative 8-year old arms causing sin.

(potential) obstacle 5: a well-known monsignor is advocating for brides to be only allowed to wear white. not off-white. not cream. not beige. just plain, stark, newly bleached teeth white.

i am tempted to go on a tirade about the tackiness of a pure white wedding dress, but i will not. instead i will ask, why does this really matter? to keep up appearances? so they could pretend every single woman getting married (whether in her 20's or 60's) is pure and untouched? who are they trying to fool? God?

besides, a woman's wedding day is supposed to be the single most important day of her life. there will be pictures. many of them, and they will keep resurfacing long after the day itself. do we really want a bunch of old, frumpy men telling us what to wear?

all these make me think that vegas may not be such a bad idea, after all.

Labels: ,