Monday, July 20, 2009


So umm it is hard to find a great place to celebrate our marriage. Luke and I were pretty much set on the Lake (for oh so many reasons) until:

1. we could no longer deny the **possibility** that it might (gasp) rain on our oh-so-anticipated-parade and 2. we found out certain family members were a little uncomfortable with the prospect.

Boo. The lake isn't OUT but we do have to really weigh our options at this point. At the very least we need a plan b. {Seattle weather doesn't have a good track record for sunshine.} But then what exactly are our options... the ones we are supposed to be weighing?

The Alexis Hotel is nice... I love exposed brick and it isn't a long drive for guests in Seattle. But the food minimums are high, the space is rather small, and ... well... what is there for people to do? Eat. Dance. Eat. Talk. Eat. Dance. Eh.
(although I wouldn't go with those table cloths...)

The Great Hall at Union Station is majestic but requires a down payment on a home for JUST the rental and food. Never mind flowers, clothes, chairs, invitations, music, decorations, etc...Where else? There are some nice restaurants in town and some sweet farms outside of town. None of them really feel right though and all are quite pricey. It is hard to pay so much for a place that is just so-so. AND, by the way, it is not exactly that a wedding at the lake would be much cheaper - - there is only so much wedding money and believe me it will probably all get circulated. However, a wedding at the lake allows us to do much more with our money - - on our terms. No required caterer and the like.

I really wish we could get married and celebrate here:

at the Pelican Hill Resort in Southern California.
or here...
at The Grand Del Mar in San Diego
With an alfresco dinner and party with a view...

Isn't it beautiful?
Seattle has nothing on these gorgeous places. AND, they are cheaper! AND, they would make for an unforgettable, amazing memory for our families and friends. AND, the unpredictability of weather patterns would no longer haunt my would-be-blissful dreams.

At first I was against a "destination wedding" for several reasons. First of all it would inevitably have a larger carbon footprint than a local wedding. There is no getting around it - even if Southern California is "close by". Secondly, it would be an expense for our guests. While most of my family lives out of state, most of Luke's live in the area. So we would be forcing many more people to decide between our celebration and their pocketbooks.

What motivated my change of heart? Well, when the philosopher's sister (who has NO money) happily shelled out the dough to fly across the country for one of her friends wedding recently I realized that the people who really want to be there will be - - especially if they have a year to plan and save. As for the environmental toll, there really is no way to cancel it out. However, we can contribute to programs that "offset" the carbon footprint of our guest's flights. In our day to day lives the philosopher and I are rather eco-conscious. This is *hopefully* a once in a lifetime celebration for us and it is not as though we would be initiating a new travel-oriented tradition to be repeated year after year. I know these are not ways to justify the ecological cost but I do think they are relevant. I don't think it makes us bad people to have one party at a place less than 15oo miles away.

The philosopher disagrees. So I guess it is all a moot point. Just a wish.

No comments: