I think we should all expect the right to spend our money the way we choose (within legal and ethical boundaries) without being second guessed and attacked by a public mob.
Now, if you had wanted to, you could have penned an editorial exploring whether there's hypocrisy in his decision to "manufacture" the scenery. But the real issue is why so many people who call themselves members of "the media" get to publish scathing blog posts that they pass off as news articles without doing any actual journalistic research.
To make such a suggestion, you'd have to claim that they shouldn't have invited nearly so many people, which is an uncomfortable claim to make.
Why should anyone have to subject their ideals of what their wedding, a deeply personal experience to them, and basically nobody else, ought to look like?
Why should the extravagance of their wedding be cause for anyone to criticize them? It wasn't tax dollars being spent, nor was the money stolen from any of the complainants. The cost of the Parker wedding doesn't affect anybody else, and could arguably seen as a beneficial set of activities as pertaining to trickle-down economics.
Because self will, opinion and free speech are VASTLY more important and sacred then someone's feelings. The internet is the MOST public medium imaginable. When talking in public expect the public to respond.
I'm confused - how exactly was anything they did talking in public?
> We chose a remote location (Big Sur), invited no press, and did our best to conceal that location from the press. We didn’t court attention — quite the opposite, we asked guests to check their cell phones and cameras at the door and we didn’t sell our photos to tabloids.
Fair enough. Perhaps I'm overly cynical and jaded but lamenting that is like lamenting rain is wet.
I mostly (at least try to) ascribe to the Thomas Jefferson ideal of "if it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket, then it matters not to me" style of involvement with other people's business.
Aside from that, I worry about the growing perception of a media/government encouraged class war, which feeds mostly on people's completely unjustified jealousy.
Apologies for unfairly representing your message. Perhaps I, too, was oversensitive to the subject - though not being a rich white guy with a history of opulent marriages, I don't know what specifically I reacted to.
I'm with you on the sensationalist bit, and would take it the additional step of assuming we have no right to barge in & opine over someone else's wedding... so long as they're not hurting anyone (or any trees). I'm guessing that last bit is the sticking point :)
That said, it does sound like a pretty extravagant over-the-top wedding, if a more tasteful one than your typical Kardashian affair. I suspect people latched onto that bit and just ran with it. I can't reconcile his talk of nature and sanctuary with the extremely manufactured and "faked" nature of the event. Why not have a low-key ceremony in an actual beautiful natural area?