Hi, I was reading through the thread started by John and Beth and I was a bit shocked by some of the comments there. But I did think the debate was an interesting one so I thought I'd voice my opinion here.

I don't think the issue is whether or not it's appropriate to have kids at a wedding.

John and Beth had a beastly time and were justifiably frustrated. But the issue isn't children. We've all been to rotten weddings-- maybe they were tacky, or excruciatingly long, or whatever. (I once attended a wedding in which very bigotted remarks were made during the ceremony-- very uncomfortable.)

It's a shame to spend so much money on an event that you don't enjoy, but that's a gamble you're taking. You're not going for a fabulous show or some kind of A-list event. You spend that kind of money because you have a strong bond with the bride and groom. You want to see them happy, and to show them, by your presence, that you support their union.

I don't think that John and Beth are owed an apology or any kind of a refund, but I also think it's very reasonable to vent.

I find it strange that people get so up in arms over the children issue (on both sides). The decision belongs to the bride and groom-- for better or worse. There is no moral imperative that says that because children are "family" they MUST be included. In most cases, they aren't old enough to appreciate the meaning of the event. And to me, it seems unfair to add to the anxiety of the bride and groom by not going along with their wishes. Why not treat it as a night or afternoon out for the two of you?

That said, there is also no rule of good taste that says that a wedding has to be seamlessly elegant event. If the bride and groom feel that the event will be more to their liking with children involved or present, then guests who don't fell it's appropriate will just have to endure it-- just as they would endure bad music, or mediocre food, or obnoxious relatives, or anything else that would make a wedding less than what they'd hoped for. Again, a wedding isn't like a fancy restaurant where you're paying for ambience and great food.

Sorry to be so long winded.
Laura

John and Beth's thread is kind of played out.

But if we're going to gripe about weddings, I'd like to know what is going through people's heads who attend a wedding and never send a gift? I got married 10 years ago (dinner, open bar, live band), and I was shocked at the number of people who never sent a gift. I'd be lying if I said I didn't notice. These are reasonably well off people, so go figure. Indeed, some guests who were not well off sent thoughtful, humble gifts. Maybe wealthy people have poor memories.

It's tacky. No question.
I think the exception is when guests have traveled from out of town. I know that it's still good form to give something, but I think it's silly to expect people to pay a few hundred dollars for airfare, hotel, etc. and then also expect a gift. I think this is doubly true for members of the bridal party who also have to spring for dresses.
Nevertheless, I think something small along with a card is perfectly acceptable.
Form says that you have a year to send a gift from the date of the wedding. But ten years? I don't think so...

Laura:

I hate to tell you this truly shocking NEWS but....Your post has been voted by
some "lurkers" as one that REALLY could have been added to the John and Beth thread!

Laura girl, I say do your thing but what you have contributed is just one more shade of ORANGE on the already overdone fabric. (The lurkers said Gray)

Ok, now come on and join back up with the rest of us TRAVELERS who can not resist a good ole travel diversion.

Let's not trend this one time practice of yours...We CAN all play together...really.

My Very Best
Oaktown

Laura-Thanks for keeping a dead horse alive. This topic has been debated and debated and debated here. Time to let it go, put it to bed, let sleeping dogs lie.....