>In a message dated 00-04-05 13:15:35 EDT, you write:
>
><< Yes, the NYT's social section is sillier than ever, but that's too trivial
>a
> subject to broach here. >>
>
>You are joking, right?
Actually those wedding announcements are important social documents, aren't they? When they started including pix of men along with women, it was a marker that bourgeois marriage was evolving beyond the woman-as-property model. Who gets an announcement and who doesn't is a marker of social influence. That same-sex couplings don't get notice is a marker of social conventions. What's trivial about all that?
DOug