When he was 28, David Weinlick knew he wanted to get married. He jokingly told his friends it would happen on June 13, 1998. A week before the big day, Weinlick and his buddies gave Cupid a little push.Launching "The Campaign to Elect Mrs. David Weinlick," Weinlick's friends decided to elect their friend a bride using DFL convention rules. The campaign attracted worldwide attention and 28 would-be brides to the Mall of America in Bloomington, MN.
Weinlick's friends and family nominated Elizabeth Runze on the second ballot. After an hour spent picking out a gown and gussying up, the wedding took place 10 years ago today.
I watched the happy couple on the Today show this morning and was awed by these two folks who seemingly beat the odds.. had 3 children and are still happily married. Here are a few reasons why:
David feels romantic love is overrated. "Marriage really ought to be more about committing to being together than it is about how you feel at a given moment," he said.
Elizabeth agrees with her husband. Although it's nice to have fireworks, she thinks a relationship needs something more substantive to survive.
For me.. I married the first time less than 4 months after our first date.. we were deeply in love 23 years later when Ellen died. I married Ann 8 months after our first date.. we celebrate our 13th anniversary this month and are still deeply commited and crazy for each other.
So, here are a few questions that come to mind:
- What do you think about this idea of marrying someone that you had not known prior to your wedding day.. and first kissed after you were married?
- How long do you think it takes to know someone well enough to walk down the aisle with them?
- Do you think that long engagements are problematic?
KB, I think a short engagement is best for two emotionally and mentally healthy people.
ReplyDeleteIf you have both of those things, you will most likely know if the other one does.
I had neither. :)
I could not marry someone I'd never met, unless she turned out to be Heidi Klum.
ReplyDeleteI think should know someone for a year before marrying them; share the change in seasons.
Long engagements are problematic. Necessary infatuation wanes and familiarity and bordom set in before love and committment really take root.
Signed, LTF
No, i definitely couldn't marry someone I didn't already know -- there are a few specific things i'd have to be sure we connected on, or it would be a disaster. But then again, I probably don't fit the role of generic "wife" terribly well myself!
ReplyDeleteBut engagements? i don't think they should be any longer than necessary for purely practical reasons.make sure it's the "right" person (whatever that means) then, once you're sure, get married ASAP. I really believe that prolonged engagements set up bad patterns of relating. We "went out" for 12 months, then had a 4 month engagement. the whole thing woulfd have been quicker, but we were both full time students when we met. We have now been married 31 years!
What do you think about this idea of marrying someone that you had not known prior to your wedding day.. and first kissed after you were married?
ReplyDeleteIt's the way it's been done for a long time and is still done in some circles. Of course so is slavery. (I kid, I kid) I do think it's odd and would prescribe it for most, but I do think it's better than living together pre-nuptials.
How long do you think it takes to know someone well enough to walk down the aisle with them?
A lifetime. My wife and I knew one another for about three years or so before we got married. We dated for about ten months and were engaged for something like five or six? Anyway it was both too long and not long enough.
Do you think that long engagements are problematic?
They can be, especially were efforts to remain "pure" are concerend.
Great dialog here..
ReplyDelete..two emotionally and mentally healthy people. -Missy
..share the change in seasons. -LTF
..once you're sure, get married ASAP. -Lynne
..especially were efforts to remain "pure" are concerend. -Scott