Monday, May 21, 2007

An anti-wedding? Or not?

I went to one of the best weddings I've been to in a long, long time yesterday. It was a very fun potluck picnic on Angel Island. Actually, I go to very few weddings, so it's not really fair to say that, since I haven't actually been to a wedding since last summer's very fun wedding.

But at any rate, Adrienne and Fahr are moving to Egypt. Adrienne's got an amazing professorship lined up in Cairo, so they've gotten rid of their worldly possessions and are taking massive Arabic lessons.

I guess marriage and all of its benefits kind of needed to be part of the deal for a bunch of logistical reasons. But really...isn't it obvious that Fahr shares the same brilliantly skeptical worldview as Adrienne, and is therefore excellent mate material for her? At any rate, it was billed as an anti-wedding, and there was even a pinata labeled The Institution of Marriage.

But I'm kind of suspicious, I must say. Let me go down the list of common wedding elements:

Feast. check.
Cake: check.
Special dress: check.
Interesting place, preferably a little hard to get to: check.
Special invitations, followed by logistical emails: check
Friends and family: check.
Ceremony: check
Kiss: check
Legal documents: check


I also wondered...why haven't I visited Angel Island, after living here in San Francisco for at least fifteen years? Since it's truly paradise on earth (and warmer than San Francisco), I must be deranged. Thanks Adrienne and Fahr for helping me see that.

Thanks to Kim, for the photo I stole from her blog.


Kim said...

I can't believe you have the techno-savvy to steal from a fellow blogger!

Sarah Goss said...

Okay, that was frustrating; I just wrote something and accidentally erased it. But what it said was:

My wedding featured no feast, no cake, no special dress, no interesting place, no special invitations, and no guests. And I think I get extra points for no ring and for no longer being friends with 2 of the 4 witnesses (who turned out to be insane and homicidal--good choices, huh?). There was a ceremony, a kiss, and legal documents, but again points for almost not being able to go through with the ceremony because of lack of funds and having to scrounge spare change from the witnesses to gather enough for the fee.

So the question is: which is the more "anti" wedding, since mine did not feature any overt anti-wedding paraphernalia (such as the excellent pinata), but lacked many more of the elements on the checklist?

I really do try not to brag about the incredible unweddingness of my wedding, ever since one of my friends accused me of being a reverse snob. I would still like to argue the point, but since it was one of the ugliest arguments I ever had with my friends, I have tried not to revisit it!

Linda said...

To me, yours is more anti, since it didn't even bother to try to subvert it.

But the pinata was a wonderful touch.