My blog has been picked up by the Pink Bride Book

Read my latest post at http://thedcpinkbook.blogspot.com/

On Behalf of All Local Wedding Photographers...

Did you know that if you want to have your wedding pictures taken in front of one of the local monuments that you have to get a PERMIT and pay between $50 and $250 to the National Park Service?

As a photographer myself, this really irks me. I mean, do we really need one more line to separate the have's from the have not's? Do the costs of a wedding not already reach sky high? The intentions behind this rule clearly target commercial photography that requires a big to-do. Sure, you should file for a permit if you need to go about setting up equipment, clearing the space around the monument, etc. But there really is no need for a permit when a person with a camera has to walk up, snap some pictures of 10-12 people in fancy clothing, and walk away. For the love of Pete, Washington, you're taking the free out of freedom. (note: until recently these permits were free, but this has changed on May 15, 2006.)




The fees are as follows:

1-10 people–$50/day
11-30 people–$150/day
Over 30 people–$250/day

If I had more time, I would email the contact (Lee_Dickinson@nps.gov) that this is a grievous wrong against local brides -- a group, I hear, that you really don't want to tick off. Am I right? I wish we could post a bunch of bridezillas on the mall to chase down any park ranger trying to enforce this rule on some poor bridal party. But as my loving fiancé reminds me, this is all done through politics and funding. Since the District of Columbia itself doesn't have the power to change its own socks, we'd have to appeal to a national advocate and I personally don't have any of those in my pockets.



Do other areas protected by the National Park Service require a permit with fees? Yes, some random place called Clinton Castle states on their web site that members of the media must pay $50 for a permit to shoot there. Hovenweep, which is located along the border between southeast Utah and southwest Colorado, just north and west of Cortez, Colorado, also requires a permit for professional filming.


However, it states:

Permits are not generally required for:

• Visitors engaged in filming/photography intended for their personal use and enjoyment

Sounds a lot like wedding photography, doesn't it Mr. Lee Dickinson?

I'm probably putting a bullseye on my forehead, but I plan to have my wedding pictures taken at one of the monuments before the reception. I refuse to file for a permit. (Here's where Gary rolls his eyes.) If I fail to stride through the ballroom doors at 7 p.m. at the Hilton on October 25 when the bridal party is announced, somebody should probably call the park police.



P.S. All these photos were taken by me sans permit.

THE Most Important Part of Wedding Planning

Part of the requirements for getting married at St. Paul's includes pre-marital counseling. The pastor who will be marrying us in October meets with us about four times prior to the rehearsal (which requires a dinner afterwards...Gary).

During our recent meeting the pastor reviewed the 38-page, multiple choice test. Since G and I were not allowed to share answers, this was the first time I was hearing how he felt about me, my parents, the government, religion, kids, etc. The pastor quickly scanned the pages, searching for some sign of potential conflict between our answers. I marked that I enjoyed outdoor recreational activities, so did G. I said that I was willing to clean the dishes if G was willing to cook. G wrote the same on his version. The pastor looked terrified that this was going to be the most boring counseling session ever.

I think the biggest discrepancy is that I would like to have 2 children and G would like to have 2 sons. The pastor tried to explain to him that this is not a drive-thru; you cannot place a gender order. sigh.

It turns out that G and I have had many "in depth" (that was a category, the other one was "shallow") conversations about many things: his childhood, my future plans, his college friends, my future plans, and even how we feel about money. I attribute this to long car rides to/from his parent's house. I think the point of this test was to root out any conflicts and analyze them. G and I agree on almost everything. To save us from being totally boring, we do disagree on fun things like who should be President and why Catholicism may or may not be the "one true faith."

We have had arguments to be sure. But after the argument was over (either several hours or a day later) I took it upon myself to bring up the situation (ATTN BRIDES, you'll want to read this as it is just as important as all the glitzy stuff you're doing for your wedding which lasts ONE DAY.) "So, do you remember when we were driving around and you were upset with me?" I asked him. "Yes," he replied. "You were driving me a little nuts." He was being kind. "Why specifically was I driving you nuts?"

Asking him this was like scrapping my own nails down a chalkboard. It is so unromantic to rehash a fight. But I know from experience that if you let these moments pass by without both of you being consciously aware of why you did what you did and why you said what you said, it causes bigger problems later. I wouldn't do this every time we argued but since this rarely happens, I felt led to bring it up.

"Because you didn't know where you were going or where we were supposed to be meeting your friend and there's no parking and I was hungry and we were running late." Not that he didn't already know this, but I was compelled to tell him I spend about 90% of my life not knowing where I'm going and/or running late. Despite my best efforts, I didn't see that changing post-vows. I winced as I asked the next question, "Are you sure there wasn't something I did earlier in the day that upset you and it just came out through our searching for parking/running late?" I've found that anytime I didn't want to know the answer to something, I didn't ask the question. Clearly, because I didn't want to know. How many times has THAT come back to haunt me? Tons.

There was, in fact, something I did earlier in the day that set him off. And rightly so. It was too small and tedious to go into, but I did something truly annoying. Something, according to my sister, that I tend to do a lot. Rats. "I'm sorry," I told him. "Not for running late when we were meeting my friend, but for being annoying earlier. I'll try to work on that because I know that it's something that I tend to do." Ugh. I didn't need a marriage test to show me that I'm not perfect. I just needed G to acknowledge that he would love me anyway.

One word of caution when reviewing these arguments: do so sparingly. Only when you're really baffled by a disagreement. I also avoid phrases like "honey, we need to talk about something," and "something you said really bothered me, but we'll talk about it later." Both considered psychological affronts in Manland.

One thing that seemed to be missing from this test was a large section on finances. Since money tends to be the number one reason for divorce, I would think that "in depth" questions about how we see the funds would have gotten more play. Next time, the pastor said. Awesome. Onto the fun stuff....

Breaking the Rules

Almost all the magazines, books and web sites, encourage brides to start their registry six to nine months out from the wedding. I'm not. Here's why. My groom is job searching -- like most of America right now. While he is currently employed, he plans to transition soon. I'm holding off on the scanner-party-through-the-store experience because I want to wait and see what type of salary he will be looking at this fall. (does anyone else think some marketing genius invented that scanner gun to get men interested in the wedding process via a "man tool"?)

If he got hooked up with a great paying position, then we wouldn't need to put some of the more basic items on the registry. If he took a pay cut, we weren't going to put anything extravagant on the list. Times are tough. Suck it up and deal with a Target kitchen knife instead of a Henkels or Wustoff.

So many things are still up in the air for us. Depending on what job he gets will determine if we rent or buy -- where we might rent or buy -- and for how long. Going through a linen superstore envisioning colors and patterns right now just seems supercilious.

In fact, at the moment, I'm envisioning 300-lb. men wheeling my two six-foot by four-foot wardrobe closets into his small, one bedroom apartment in October -- followed by one five-foot shoe rack and four giant tubs of sweaters. Gary will wonder if he acquired a wife or a warehouse.



I can't imagine adding more on top of that, or where we would put it. So, even though we have our eyes on Williams & Sonoma and Crate & Barrel, those dynamic retail double-names will have to wait for now....