Pets in the Wedding Party
by Motte Brown on 06/25/2009 at 9:20 AM
We talked about being a good groomsman or bridesmaid on a recent episode of the Boundless podcast. But nobody mentioned that scooping poop may become one of the regular duties in-between escorting grandma down the aisle and lighting candles.
From a USAToday.com article:
Pet-loving couples are increasingly including their dogs (and other pets, to a much lesser degree) in the wedding parties of some very formal weddings — decking them out in silk and satin and including them in the receiving line, on the program and in the portraits.
"Many people think of their pets as family members, and they wouldn't think of having a special day like this without that member," says Celina Bojorquez, co-owner of Beverly Hills Mutt Club, purveyor of upscale accessories like doggie tuxedos ($70 and up) and couture dresses ($170 to $500).
It seems the preferred method of inclusion is to have a groomsman walk the dog(s) down the isle on a fancy leash and have it sit at the alter while the vows are taken. Yo!
Any of you soon-to-bes planning to have your pooch as part of the wedding party?
1. Tami said the following at 9:31 AM on Jun 25:
Brings new meaning to the word groomsman!
...come on. Someone had to say it.
2. Megan said the following at 9:48 AM on Jun 25:
I'm not a soon-to-be, but I definitely want to have my BFFs in my wedding ... and that would include my dog.
He's little, and the fool sleeps in the bed with me every night. He's friendly enough, and is well trained, so I think that he'd do well in a setting like that.
3. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:03 AM on Jun 25:
In that case, my superhero cat Recon can be the best man at my wedding.
4. Carrie (the original) said the following at 10:16 AM on Jun 25:
The only problem is you would have to make sure that no guests have severe pet allergies.
5. Mark said the following at 10:24 AM on Jun 25:
It seems to sort of defeat the purpose of the wedding party to have it include non-humans. But I guess to each his/her own. If its just a matter of getting a warm body that you love in there, then I guess a pet will do just fine. But still, it seems weird to me.
Maybe the real reason why I think this is that I'm concerned the onlookers might confuse me for the the pooch! How about a more esoteric pet that will provide no competition in the looks department, like perhaps a tarantula or a scorpion?.. :) I wonder how many would go for that?
6. Dani said the following at 10:24 AM on Jun 25:
Wow, I love my pets, but they're just that: pets. My fiance and I are getting married next June, and we've joked about including his family's greyhounds in the ceremony, but there are no actual thoughts that they will make an appearance.
That being said, even stranger than including your pets (because I can kinda get that) is paying $70 on their outfit for the wedding day. Yikes! My man and I are trying to keep our budget under $5000 and that means cutting corners everywhere, not adding expenses for a nice outfit that will likely be ruined by a well-meaning, but ultimately messy, little animal.
Maybe I'm being too harsh, but it just strikes me as a little silly.
7. Cassandra said the following at 10:36 AM on Jun 25:
I'll disclaim this by saying I'm not a big pet person, so I probably just don't understand :), but I think it's a little obnoxious. It just goes with the anthropomorphizing of pets that's been going on in our culture of late. Chuck Colson's Breakpoint commentary yesterday was on that very issue.
8. Lora said the following at 10:57 AM on Jun 25:
I'm not even close to be getting married, but I've thought I'd like to go down the aisle on my horse (led by my dad). I'm not stuck on the idea or anything and the horse would not be part of the wedding party. Just transportation down the aisle. I can picture a bridesmaid in a fancy dress and heels with a shovel...
9. Fisayo said the following at 11:35 AM on Jun 25:
There's a fine line between being inconsiderate and having fun when it comes to having pets at weddings. We all know it's the couple's big day(they are entitled to celebrate it as they so wish)but a big part of weddings is trying to accommodate all guests. Some guests might have strong phobias and others might have allergies as someone pointed earlier. And even worse, depending on their cultural background, some others might find it offensive.
10. BDB said the following at 12:03 PM on Jun 25:
Probably better to bring pets to the reception to lick the cake.
11. Renee said the following at 12:30 PM on Jun 25:
And...is anyone taking into consideration the purpose of having bridesmaids and groomsmen as a part of your ceremony in the first place? My understanding was that those in attendance (especially members of the wedding party), with their participation are accepting a degree of responsibility to help the bride and groom to uphold their wedding vows in years to come, by providing support and even accountability as needed throughout the couple's marriage. I don't see Fido stepping in to bring reason or verbal encouragement into the picture when the marriage relationship gets rough...
12. Marie said the following at 12:44 PM on Jun 25:
My roommate wants to have a "flower dog" instead of a flower girl...
13. DEH said the following at 12:55 PM on Jun 25:
I think the idea of pets in the wedding ceremony is a bit weird. I do like the image created by Lora's idea (#8) of riding the horse down the aisle in an outdoor wedding. That just seems beautiful to me. But in that case the horse serves a function, like you said, so I think it's different than, say, having your dog in the ceremony. I think it would only work if the dog was VERY well behaved, as I'm sure some are, but no one in my circle of friends has one that wouldn't jump up on people's fancy wedding clothes.
14. BDB said the following at 1:05 PM on Jun 25:
You could probably get away with bringing a therapy dog.
15. kaj said the following at 2:05 PM on Jun 25:
re: Comment #12:
Whether flower girl (and a very young one at that) or flower dog, either can act very unpredictably!
16. Craig M. said the following at 2:18 PM on Jun 25:
I love dogs. LOVE 'em. I think it's amazing how one certain type of animal has adapted itself to love and serve mankind so eagerly and so effectively. Dogs make great companions, and love for animals can be a great part of life.
But this is absolutely nuts, and anyone who thinks it makes sense to have a dog IN A WEDDING PARTY has utterly lost his or her marbles. No wonder nobody takes marriage seriously anymore. A wedding is a civic event and sacrament. It is part of a civic and religious order unique to humans (an order that is bigger than any two individual people who happen to be getting married). Animals taking the place of human participants in something so civically and religiously significant indicates a deterioration of the seriousness with which the people involved view the ceremony and the unique nature of human beings.
I'm reminded of Dennis Prager's question to college age students: "if you had to choose, would you save your beloved dog from drowning, or a complete (human) stranger?" Some serious percentage chose the dog--demonstrating that they have no moral understanding. This dogs-as-part-of-the-wedding-party thing is cut from the same cloth.
We will be remembered as the century of idiocy and triviality.
17. Tamara (from Canada) said the following at 2:31 PM on Jun 25:
Pets at a wedding . . . that just seems kinda crazy to me! And, as other posters have said, you would have to take into consideration both severe pet allergies and phobias for all guests at the wedding. Given the purpose of the bridesmaids and groomsmen, as well as the guests, who are at a wedding and are declaring that they will support and honour the marriage, I would hope that most couples would consider the people to be more important than the pet, particularly if there are people on the guest list with allergies/phobias.
18. JuliestD said the following at 3:18 PM on Jun 25:
I have pet allergies and I am constantly having problems because other people are not considerate and do not think about that their pet is an animal, not a purse to be brought everywhere.
Since when is it okay to bring your dog in Office Depot, for example?
I would like to add that I actually really love dogs and desperately wish that I weren't allergic.
With that - can I pose the idea that perhaps in a world where children do not have enough to eat, and the orphan problem is out of control, as Christians should we be subsidizing animals in our homes for no other reason than our own selfish recreation?
And now, further, buying them tuxedos?
Just asking...I don't know the answer...just sharing something I wonder about and haven't figured out.
19. JuliestD said the following at 3:27 PM on Jun 25:
I mean, Americans spent an estimated 43.3 billion dollars on their pets, and about 63% of American households have pets. I found a statistic which said that the average American household spends $120/month on pet supplies. I don't know if that's accurate for everyone, but how many people in America are giving at least $120/mo to hungry, homeless people or orphans?
How many of those American households are "Christian" households?
I don't think it's wrong to have pets necessarily...this is just something I am wondering about lately in a time of economic recession where I keep hearing that people do not have enough money to give freely to Christian charities. I think people have money for what they value.
Dogs, cats, etc. are great and lovable and wonderful -- but they don't have immortal souls the same way people do. I just am thinking that we ought to funnel money into what matters! If God gives you excess, maybe getting a pet is okay for you...but maybe you could find love in the eyes of an orphan child instead of a cocker spaniel.
20. Kristina said the following at 3:48 PM on Jun 25:
Pets in your wedding doesn't bother me, but people who have weddings for their pets... now that get's on my nerves. As a single person with no prospects of marriage at the moment, I already have to deal with seeing everyone else my age (late twenties) besides me getting to walk down the aisle. I don't need some animals rubbing it in my face too. lol
21. Lis said the following at 5:04 PM on Jun 25:
I do love pets; I had a dog I loved very much, but I think it is silly to have pets in a wedding. just my opinion...
22. Kellie said the following at 5:57 PM on Jun 25:
#19: We probably spend $20 a month or less on our cat. Dogs would probably cost more (perhaps a lot more depending on the size of the dog!). I do think that some people tend to go overboard on their pets and treat them as children. However, pets can be companions for lonely people, playmates for children, etc. They enrich life and are a blessing from the Lord.
23. Leah said the following at 6:13 PM on Jun 25:
I wouldn't do it, and think it's a bit silly, but I kinda shrug and go "who cares?" It's not like the pet is taking the place of humans (like some commenters seem to think)- the bridal party is still made of humans who will support the couple.
And as for it being offensive, I'd say "get over it". Some people might find it offensive for the bride to wear anything but a white dress, but there are plenty of brides these days who wear ivory, champagne or even silver dresses (and in some cases, completely different colours). Others would be offended if you had the ceremony outside a church. Others might be offended if you decide not to have rings (I know a couple who got their spouse's name tattooed on their ring finger because neither of them were 'jewellery people'.) The only people you should be concerned about offending are the families. Of course you don't go out of your way to offend guests, but if something you really want to do offends a guest, I'd tell the guest to get over it. It's not their wedding.
The thing is, all these traditions - having the wedding in a church, having attendants, wearing a white dress, rings, are all human constructions, and it really shouldn't matter if people want to tweak them.
Also re: allergies and whatnot... firstly, the couple would probably know if one of their guests are allergic and would be careful in respect to that. Second, most pet allergies, to my knowledge, are really only set off when they come into close contact with the animal or its hair, not sitting on the other side of a church from it.
24. Tom Neven said the following at 6:52 PM on Jun 25:
We had an unplanned pet guest at our wedding. The pastor was single, and his only (and best) companion was his beloved beagle.
He left the dog in his office when he came to perform the ceremony but must have left the door ajar. In the middle of the wedding ceremony, the beagle walked out from behind the altar and strode down the center aisle to the church doors.
Barely missing a beat, the pastor stopped the ceremony just long enough to ask a guest to let the dog out. That done, he resumed the ceremony as if nothing had happened.
25. BDB said the following at 8:34 PM on Jun 25:
Craig M (#16) wrote:
>> Some serious percentage chose the dog--demonstrating that they have no moral understanding. <<
They also have little biological understanding.
Dogs can naturally swim. Dog paddle anyone?
26. Rachael said the following at 9:43 PM on Jun 25:
someone: "but maybe you could find love in the eyes of an orphan child instead of a cocker spaniel."
...Maybe the cocker spaniel owner is giving of his/her heart, which, I think, could be way more 'brownie points-ish' than giving money.
It's ultimately up to God to judge what we do with our financial resources and what we do with our hearts. And what we do with them is not always indictive of personal holiness.
...maybe someone could have the conviction (given at the top of this comment) and use it as inspiration for his/her own choices, and that could be a very honorable choice to make.
27. Keith said the following at 9:56 PM on Jun 25:
At least people aren't getting married to dogs yet ... are they?
28. DannieA said the following at 12:41 AM on Jun 26:
Judge not lest you be judged!
JuliestD.....I spend a LOT of money on my dog. Heck, she has 4 collars and a better wardrobe than I, and I take her in my purse to the stores because she is tiny!
Yet, I also sponsor a couple of kids through compassion int., tithe, and give to charities that have to do with improving children's lives. (please note, this wasn't said to glorify any charity over another or what not...poster merely stated that she doubted that a person spending a lot of money on pets wouldn't spend that much on others)
Don't judge people so harshly by how they treat their pets. In fact, I trust a man that treats his pets like they are family more than I trust a man that hates pets or doesn't care of have them...why? because if he can treat a defenseless animal with love and kindness, I have hope that he would treat me and children the same.
(and for those with allergies, there are such things as hypoallergenic animals)
29. Blue Sarah said the following at 2:40 AM on Jun 26:
Never mind just "non-humans" in the wedding party, how bout non-livings. Someone I know had her teddy bear roll down the aisle (remote-cntrolled of course) bearing the rings.
30. P&P said the following at 6:54 AM on Jun 26:
If people can get married on a waterslide, while sky diving, or at Disney with some awful Barbie/Princess dream theme, someone can walk fido down the aisle.
But no cats. I'm allergic to cats.
31. KJ said the following at 9:00 AM on Jun 26:
I do love my dog a great deal, and some people think I treat her like a baby instead of a dog...but considering that she has been mistreated by some people at my church (and would consequently like to rip them apart if she were big enough to do so) and she has issues with children, and also the whole sit-stay concept never quite stuck...I don't think so.
JuliestD - I do spend money on my pet, but I would like to point out that she provides much more than "selfish recreation" in my home. She provides protection, both in the home and when I'm jogging, not to mention companionship and comfort.
32. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:15 AM on Jun 26:
I love my cat and I've loved the dogs/family members we have had since I was eight years old.
Please do not judge people who spend money on their pets.
When you decide to obtain a pet you have an obligation to provide food, supplies and medical care for the pet.
These things cost money!
Now re pets in wedding parties may be viewed as somewhat extreme...but so what?
If you don't approve of someone's wedding ceremony then you have the option to forgo attendance.
33. Craig M. said the following at 12:47 PM on Jun 26:
I don't understand how so many of you can seem so serious about marriage yet be entirely willing to have the wedding ceremony treated as a mere exercise in "cute" personalization, devoid of all dignity. I find the attitude schizophrenic and incredibly distasteful.
34. DannieA said the following at 2:23 PM on Jun 26:
Well Craig to each their own. Who am I to say that a person can't have their dog bring the ring or whatever. Get over it. As Louise from Chicago said earlier, if you have a problem with a person's wedding, then don't go.
35. LouiseinPA said the following at 4:20 AM on Jun 27:
I agree with Craig M. I find it appalling that people don't understand the fact that marriage is sacred-a covenant-and the wedding should reflect this. I would not include pets in a church worship serve, so why would I include a pet in my wedding? I have cats and recongnize that pets can be blessings from the Lord, but they just don't belong in a religious wedding ceremony. Of course, if a couple is having a secular ceremony, I can see why they would want to since they can do whatever they want. Actually, a priest I know once had a couple that wanted their dog to walk down the aisle. He told them absolutely not.
I should add that my fiancee and I are Catholic, so we view marriage as scared and a sacrament. That, of course, influences my view towards the question of pets.
36. JuliestD said the following at 11:50 PM on Jun 27:
Wow -- people were even more harshly judgmental of me because of my comments than I anticipated.
I'm just honestly trying to share a thought that in my own search to think "Christianly" about how to spend my money, that I have thought about.
Because, yes, I've wanted these "hypoallergenic" dogs. Which the only truly hypoallergenic dog available costs several thousands of dollars.
Why is it that relativism reaches even into Christianity? Isn't there any room for someone to honestly ask a question and say, "hey, maybe we need to not take for granted some of our expenses?"
37. Leah said the following at 12:01 AM on Jun 28:
I wonder if Craig M (33) and Louise in PA (35) are forgetting that it is marriage which is sacred to the Lord, not the actual wedding ceremony.
The bible gives us very, very few instructions re: wedding ceremonies. Like I said in a previous comment, attendants, white dresses, rings, processionals, traditional vows, having weddings in churches, are all human-established traditions. God did not dictate any of that. Yes, many of those represent biblical principles, or originally did and have now lost those meanings (eg. white dress- purity; rings- continual love/commitment, etc). But they were not mandated by God so we should not feel obligated to stick to them if we don't want to. However, the whole attendants tradition is completely unrelated to the church. That started in times when a bride might be kidnapped on her way to the church, so she would have bridesmaids dressed like her as decoys. The groom had his groomsmen as 'bodyguards' in case someone tried to fight him for the woman.
Are people really getting their nose out of joint at the idea of someone altering a tradition that reminisces bodyguards?? Heck, maybe those same weddings had guard dogs! Or perhaps we shouldn't have flowergirls and pageboys because they are too young to understand the solemnity of the ceremony they are taking part in? Goodness knows we wouldn't want to include them just to look 'cute' or make them feel included.
38. LouiseinPA said the following at 7:25 PM on Jun 29:
Leah (37)_ I don't care if women and men choose to have attendants or not. You are absolutely right that it's not a Christian concept at all. However, I take a difference stance at the ceremony itself. As I said before, I am Catholic, which meants that I will have a wedding Mass. As I Catholic, i believe that Jesus is really present in the Eurchast which is the center of the Mass. Through the partaking in the Eucharist, my fiancee and I unite ourselves to Christ and achieve unity through the sacrament as well as through the marriage. This is sacred. You don't have to have attendants to make this special-but having a dog or cat running around the church during this is an unnecssary and unwelcome distraction. Sure, it would still be a valid marriage but it would be out of place. It is like having an infant at a fancy restaurant-
39. MarkS said the following at 8:41 AM on Jul 8:
Lora,
What if your man rode in on his white steed?
"Hear Ye, Hear Ye, by proclamation of The Lord, these twain shall evermore be one!"