It seems that the issue of ‘you can get it on your own’ is the mantra of the moment for those who think the Affordable Care Act is unnecessary.

Let’s talk for a moment about price and accessibility.

Price (which directly affects accessibility):

When you get insurance through your employer, you are part of a pool of ‘shared risk’ – it’s based on averages, likelihoods, etc.  It’s also part of your compensation package.  Your health status is not typically a part of the equation when you join your employer’s health plan. 

In 2006-7, according to Kaiser Family Foundation (nonprofit focused on health-care policy), the average annual premium was $2,613 – $218/mo for an INDIVIDUAL.  BCBS of Illinois (because insurance companies are under state not federal mandate) charged $636/mo w/ a $250 deductible for a family of four….if they raised their deductible to $1,750, then the premium dropped to $415/mo.  And that typically won’t include a maternity rider.

Now, let’s factor in a couple of things (moving onto ‘accessiblity’):

Income.  The average American makes about $41,673.  Of that, about 34% goes towards taxes.  That leaves almost $27,504 as a yearly income. Now, if you’re a family of 4 (with a $1,750 ded), subtract out $4,980 for insurance premiums (remember, I’m using 2006 insurance costs and 2010 income….so it’s probably worse than I’m painting it).  That leaves about $22,524 for a yearly income.  That’s less than $2,000/mo to pay for food, housing, clothing, transportation, utilities, daycare….

Insurance at that price is inaccessible.  And I took AVERAGE numbers – not ‘poorest of the poor’ or ‘upper middle class’.

BTW, does anyone know what the official ‘poverty line’ is in the US for 2012?  I do – it’s $23,050 for a family of 4. The cost of insurance has reduced the AVERAGE INCOME for a family of 4 below the poverty line.

How DARE anyone say that ‘you always have the option of getting private coverage’ as if it’s affordable and easily accessible.  It’s not.

(And let’s not even talk about pre-existing…I know of a woman who was denied because her ‘pre-existing’ was a yeast infection when she was 19 year old!)


I heard someone say this the other day…I was walking onto my local college campus (you know, that godless bastion of liberal thinking) and overheard this remark.  I kind of assumed it had something to do with the current student body elections that are going on, or maybe the meetings between students/faculty to revamp some class schedule issues that are causing a bit of tension.  Nope.

They were talking about undocumented immigrants, and how ‘all the problems’ of our great nation would somehow be solved if we could just get rid of all of ‘them.’

Now, I could do my research and tell you all the ways these people (don’t let that get lost…they are people) contribute to society, culture, GNP, etc.  But most folks have read all that before.  I could dig out my Bible and recite verse after verse detailing how we are to treat the foreigner in our midst, the stranger in our land, those less fortunate…you get the idea.  I’m not going to do that.

Instead, I’m going to go with it.  “Get them out.”  Hmmm…how would that work?  What would that look like?  How would we do that and still maintain the ideals spelled out for our nation in it’s Constitution?

No one has ever come up with a way to evict an entire class of people from a country.  At least not one that upholds the ideals espoused in the Constitution of this country.

Genocide has been tried, pogroms…both in innumerable forms. We’re trying ‘economic hardship’ by making it difficult (if not impossible) for them to get jobs, but they’re used to that – they’ve come from that, and survived.

First of all, we’d have to identify them, and make sure they STAY identified…How about a big red “I” on their jacket, or a tattoo on their forearm or the back of their neck (or a yellow star)?

Then we have to come up with a way to transport them in a cost-effective way back across the boarder (because, let’s be honest, we KNOW they all come from Mexico, right?  Nobody’s bitchin’ about ‘them damn Canadians!’)…..if we took the seats/beds out of train cars, we could move a lot of them at one time.  (Or we could use the cattle cars instead….)

Of course, nobody’s really paying attention to what REALLY happens to these folks after we haul them out of their homes, and Mexico’s starting to get pissed off that we’re dumping all these people just over the border…maybe if we just ‘reduce the numbers’ a bit…to keep Mexico happy, of course.

Oh look!  It must be working because we’re transporting fewer and fewer illegals every week!  BTW, why’s the field across town been marked ‘Off Limits’?

Of course, once they’re ‘gone’, you have to keep them ‘out’…. Welcome to Checkpoint Carlos (yes, being deliberately offensive):

Berlin Wall 1963

Racial purity or economic strawmen….reasons don’t matter when the end result is the same.

“Getting them out”  isn’t going to happen.  They certainly aren’t leaving on their own, and we can’t really force the issue more than we have without sacrificing a large part (most? all?) of our national identity.  We really are teetering on the edge.

Which takes me back to those Bible verses…

This is a person (90 years old):

This is a person (23 week preemie):

This has a less than 50% chance of ever BECOMING a person (blastocyst 6 days after fertilization/conception, just prior to implantation):

While I applaud efforts to extend ‘common decency’ as far as possible, this ‘extension’ is a bit farther than I can wrap my head around.  Even harder for me to wrap my head around is the idea that someone other than me, my husband, and my doctor is better situated to make healthcare decisions for and about me – with no thought as to my condition, my family’s situation, and with even less thought/consideration for my opinion on something so personal as my reproductive life.

I’ve heard people say stuff like “well they [Congress/State Legislatures]  aren’t making anything illegal, so why should I care?”  I want to pop their little heads like balloons and somehow make them understand that an overall attitude that infantalizes women, promotes the idea that we are either too dumb/clueless to contribute in any meaningful way to our own health issues/solutions, and tops it off with a WTF dose of “put an aspirin between your knees” (and they’ll be able to see if we are, because we’re all wearing slutty short skirts, doncha know!) is not just a ‘passing thing’ – it’s an attitude that’s been centuries in the making.  An attitude that is not longer relevant in today’s world.  An attitude that, followed to it’s logical conclusion, does not see that women and men are equally ‘human’ with the same inalienable rights, but instead sets about ‘granting’ women special rights in order to make them seem equal to men.  I just don’t get why folks are blowing off the GOP’s attitude towards women in general. (Read How the GOP Went Back to the 50s in Just One Day)

It’s not just Personhood Laws – those are merely ONE outer manifestation of the attitude. From Santorum’s “birth control leads to…” comments to Paul’s wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, every. single. Republican nominee has committed himself – in one way or another – to restricting women’s reproductive rights. ALL of them.  Every. Single. One.

If you’re a woman, have a daughter, or a granddaughter….why would you put someone in the Oval Office who has made abridging women’s rights a major part of their social agenda platform?

Sorry for the rant, but I’m a woman (who is apparently nowhere near menopause) with 2 daughters.  I want them to have accurate information, legal and ACCESSIBLE birth control (when it becomes needed – for as LONG as it’s needed), and I want them to be able to make any and all meaningful decisions about her body FOR HERSELF.  Not have them made FOR her by these guys:

Folks are free to believe what they like….but when they try to legislate their ‘gut level’ beliefs on others, they really need to have more than “I just feel it’s wrong” and “I just KNOW ” to back them up.

Yep.  You got it – that ‘love everyone’, ‘turn the other cheek’, ‘Father, forgive them’ guy was a RADICAL.  In a time when obedience to the law, and ONLY obedience to the law was the pathway to salvation for Jews (and only Jews and those ‘properly’ converted), when phylacteries were worn on the heads and arms of the ‘truly righteous’…He came along with the message that God loves EVERYONE.  That you only need to have faith the size of a mustard seed in order to be saved.  That the whole of the law can be summed up as “Love God more than anything else and love your neighbor as you love yourself.”  That your neighbor is (horror of horrors) someone you loathe – someone who is on par with animals in your worldview.   That’s it.  Radical, indeed, at the time – when breaking even ONE of several hundred laws (minutely detailed and intricately spelled out) could mean exclusion from religious ceremonies, shunning, public humiliation, and even stoning.  Radical, indeed.

So, it bothers me a bit to hear churches talking about adopting ‘centrist’ positions.  I want that from my politicians – because it means something might actually get done.  But when I hear churches talking about it, I hear “we are comfortable here, we don’t want to upset anyone, and we need to keep our membership stable.”  Oh, those aren’t the words they use, they say things like “It’s Biblical – God doesn’t support X, it’s right here in Y-Book 4:81.”

A central position risks nothing.  It maintains the status quo.  We’re comfortable feeding the poor, clothing the hungry, visiting the housebound, etc…As long as it’s on ‘safe’ and ‘comfortable’ terms, through ‘appropriate’ channels; or, as the Presbyterians say: “Decently, and in order.” (my family will get that!)  There is nothing wrong with the status quo – it provides a time of rest after growth, it gives a breathing space after change, and it reflects a temporarily static time that is natural in the lives of all churches.  But maintaining the status quo isn’t our goal, and shouldn’t be where we lay down our tools, step back, and say ‘well, we did it.’

So, what IS the church’s goal?  Well, simplistically, I suppose our goal is to bring the message of Christ to the world and bring the world into the Family of God while living as examples of Him to the best of our Christ-driven ability…relying, as always, on His grace and mercy to sustain us. (Matthew 28:19-20  “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”)

So, what’s a radical to do?  Well, a radical would emulate Christ – and go out and DO what Christ commissioned us to do.

1) Make disciples of all nations.  What’s a disciple?  A ‘learner’ to begin with.  (John 8:31) A disciple studies the Word of God so he/she can use it appropriately as they live out that Word in their lives and so they can prepare to instruct others (after all, that’s part of what a disciple does!). Not too radical yet…we live in an educated society.

A disciple is also a ‘follower.’  Of Christ.  Not of their pastor, their deacon, their spouse, or even the apostle Paul.  Of Christ.  Getting closer to radical.

A disciple is also willing to sacrifice….even to the extent of dying, both figuratively (Matthew 10:37-39) and literally (Revelation 2:10).  Pretty radical.

A disciple also loves all other disciples.  ALL.  One more time.  ALL other disciples.  (John 13:34-35)  Not just when we agree with them; not just when they are doing what WE think is right;  not just when they are conforming to our standards of what an ‘acceptable’ Christian does/is like.  Unconditionally.  No matter what. (1 Corinthians 13:7)  Once again – pretty radical.

A disciple bears fruit.  It shows who we belong to; who our leader is; what values He has instilled in us. (John 15:8)  Not really a radical idea, but for many, it seems, their fruit is ‘theoretical’:  “in THEORY we love all Christians – just not enough to accept them unconditionally.”  In THEORY, we are ‘reaching out’ – while establishing boundaries and limits for how ‘barely acceptable’ Christians can use the gifts/talents God gave them.  In THEORY, we are inclusive and welcoming of those who are ‘different’ – while adopting policies and associations that are exclusionary and divisive.

A centrist position, while a necessity after times of growth, turmoil, and other events, keeps us where we’re at.  A Christ-focused, radical position moves us closer to the Kingdom.  Or does it move the Kingdom closer to us?

Christ was a radical: (Mark 9:38-40)

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us.

A final thought, because I’m feeling a bit ‘Rodney King-ish’ and wanting to know if all Christians can ‘just get along’ – and because Eddie Izzard is my favorite comedian:

“I went down, told them to hang out, drink wine – they split into groups: Catholics, Protestants, Jesuits, Methodists, Evangelicals, Free Presbyterians, ‘Locked Up’ Presbyterians, the Quakers, the Bakers, the Candlestick Makers.”  Radical, man.

Sneak Peak….

So, if you’re on FB and you get my church’s newsletter, you get a sneak peak at what I wrote for the Chimes for March:

It’s a season of Change.  It happens whether we want it to or not – and we are sometimes defined by how we respond to it.  Immanuel is in the middle of big changes right now – keeping our pulpit filled and deciding on our church’s affiliation are two decisions that are enough to keep some congregations in a state of change for years! (Let’s hope that it doesn’t last that long!)  But changes are part of growing, expanding, and becoming the Church that Christ would have us be.

Change is not always easy, and the changes Immanuel makes as we select a pastor and decide who we affiliate with will speak to our community, our families, and (ultimately) to the world at large about our commitment to Christ and His words regarding our role as His Church:  “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13: 34-35)

I think this is one of many challenges for the Church in the 21st Century – to love one another as Christ loved us….without caring if one is a tax collector, a poor fisherman, a prostitute, a wealthy publican, or a beloved brother.  If we make our changes prayerfully, loving each other as Christ loved us (mercifully and graciously), and keeping Him as our focus, the changes we make will be changes that make us lights in a dark world.  So pray for our changes – pray that they are the changes God would have us make, that they would make us the people He wants us to be, and that they would speak to the people who need to hear His voice.  And keep in mind the words from Ecclesiastes 3:

There is a time for everything,and a season for every activity under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal,a time to tear down and a  time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh,a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,a time to embrace and a time to refrain, a time to search and a  time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate,a time for war and a time for peace.

Peace,  Jill

Totally offensive title – I know, you know it.  I wanted to get your attention.  I could have called this “The Christian Conundrum” – which is boring.  Or “What I think about homosexuality and Christianity” – which is obvious, because I’M the one writing this blog.  Instead, I went with ‘offensive’ – because it kind of represents mainstream Christianity’s ‘problem’ with homosexuality.

Even when we believe the Scriptures are without error, it is a risk to think our understanding is without error.

I posted this quote earlier in the week as a facebook status, not really realizing how deeply it resonated with me.  The following thoughts have been ‘bubbling’ in my head for several weeks now, as I think about the implications of what we, as Christians, say to our community and our friends when it comes to issues of homosexuality. Yep – I’m goin’ there.

As a Christian, I have heard over and over and over again the Biblical justification for denouncing homosexuality as an ‘abomination’, or as a lifestyle ‘choice’ that is a sin.  None of those things are new to me, and 20 years ago, I was a big supporter of those ideals – even wrote an impassioned letter to the editor of a local paper giving (what I thought) were very good reasons for homosexuals to not be a part of church leadership.  I am ashamed of that letter today — I was so very wrong.  And am willing to acknowledge that my feelings and thoughts at the time were based on fear, and not on the unrelenting grace and love of Christ.

Even when we believe the Scriptures are without error, it is a risk to think our understanding is without error.

I have to admit, that even now, as I approach the midpoint of my life, my understanding is not what it should be — but it’s better than it was.  The ‘Christian perspective’ on homosexuality scares me now, for a variety of reasons.

First of all, it scares me because of what it teaches our young people of faith.  I’ve been teaching a class recently on what it means to be part of a Christian Fellowship – how to be a part of the body of Christ, how to show love to our fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord, how to deepen and maintain those relationships, and how to begin building those relationships.  Holding people at arms length, refusing to let them be the part of Christ’s body that He calls them to be, and denying them the full fellowship of their brothers and sisters in Christ do not seem, to me, to be the most effective way of growing the body of Christ and honoring His plan for all of it’s members.

Are we teaching our young people that God loves everyone, and that His plan is for ALL people – or that His love, forgiveness, and salvation are only for those who meet OUR interpretation of His plan and OUR yardstick of ‘repentance’ in order to be considered ‘repentant enough’ or ‘Christian enough’?

Even when we believe the Scriptures are without error, it is a risk to think our understanding is without error.

Second, the mainstream Christian view of homosexuality frightens me because of what it says about US.  And it doesn’t say anything good.  It says we’re frightened.  It says that we dishonestly conflate homosexuality with pedophilia and BDSM  proclivities with no differentiation between loving, supportive, familial homosexual relationships and exploitive, painful, strictly sexual relationships.  A point of view that should be rectified.  It says we are afraid…of what, I’m not quite sure, but I think it has something to do with ‘catching the gay-ness’ — an immature fear that is no more fact-based than the bogeyman or the chupakabra.

We use Romans and Leviticus as justification for our fears, assuring ourselves that we are doing ‘God’s will’ by villifying and keeping to the edges those homosexual people who dare to come close enough to us to be included in our worship services.  A blog/article that might be interesting:

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/homosexuality.html (Westar is not affiliated with any religious institution nor does it advocate a particular theological point of view.)

I simply cannot read the whole of the Bible, acknowledge God’s love and saving grace for myself, then turn to my fellow Christian and say “if you’re gay, you need to be ‘fixed’ before you are acceptable here.”

I Corinthians 1:28-30

He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are,  so that no one may boast before him.  It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Finally (or maybe not – might have further thoughts in days to come), I don’t like the mainstream Christian attitude towards gay and lesbians because of what it says about the nature of God and salvation.

Matthew 7:1-5

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

I have no business, as a child of God, deciding who is or is not saved, who is not a ‘real’ Christian, or who has not consecrated their lives to Christ – Romans 3:21-24:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.  This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

We are all made perfect through Christ – not perfect for each other, not perfect according to the world, but perfect for the calling God gives us, and perfect in His love for us.  Rich or poor, black or white, Lutheran or Baptist……heterosexual or homosexual. I am not called to be the best ‘heterosexual’ I can be – I am called to be whatever God calls me to be…whatever that is, I would answer that calling whether or not I was heterosexual or homosexual, tall or short, brunette or graying, male or female, married or single.

It makes no sense for the family of God to divide itself along this line – into ‘us’ and ‘them’.  It’s not what we are called to do.

Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Now, I’m going to hit ‘post’, and in about 30 minutes I’ll think “I should’ve said THIS”….it’s the way it goes for me!  I’m not crusading to change the world, the Church, or to force people to agree with me (I’m aware that many thousands don’t!).  I’m simply putting my point of view ‘out there’, as a Christian, as someone who is no longer ‘too young to be taken seriously’, and as someone who strongly believes in the ‘One-ness’ of the body of Christ.  I also believe that, while we may disagree on occasion, an overriding love for our Heavenly Father and His love for us will ultimately lead us, not down a path of fear, judgement, and misunderstandings, but down the path towards knowledge, enlightenment, true Christian fellowship between ALL Christians and peace.

Yeah, I probably could have put this on my ‘business blog’, but since I wanted full latitude to be sarcastic, perhaps scathing, and definitely derogatory, I thought it best to put my creative talents to work on the personal page!

For those who don’t know, I’m a photographer – something I enjoy very much!  But there’s something that bothers me, and this seems to be an appropriate forum to ‘get it out there.’

Magazines.  Specifically bridal magazines.  You know the ones – an impossibly airbrushed bride on the cover, with a 12 inch waist, a veil of antique spanish lace, heels that I would break my neck trying to walk in, and casually looking beautiful in front of a tropical waterfall on an unpopulated island in the South Pacific.  Those bridal magazines (which is pretty much all of them).

Don’t get me wrong – I’d love to be featured in one!  My beef is NOT with the magazine or the impossibly high expectations it sells to those who buy it….my complaint is with the list of questions it tells prospective brides they simply must ask their photographers.

The following questions are pretty standard – and are on a LOT of bridal ‘checklists’.  These are the questions that make photographers cringe…we know you’ve been reading the magazines.

1. What is the photographer’s style — traditional, photojournalistic, etc.?

Honestly – the most common answer you are going to get is “A combination of formal portrait style (to keep the parents happy!) and relaxed photojournalistic style  that ensures that candid moments are also part of the visual record of your day.”  We want your business.  A lot.  And we’ll do a lot in the way of adapting to the kinds of shots YOU want of your wedding day.  I don’t know a single wedding photographer who will say “Just formals and the ceremony…I’ve never gotten the hang of shooting candids” or “Nope – I don’t do formals.  Never enjoyed it, so I just don’t do it.”  You’re going to get your images – probably the way you want them, since I’ll assume that you didn’t get some guy off Craigslist who’s images you’ve never seen before.  You’re only interviewing photographers who have work you already like.

LOOK at what the photographer has done in the past.  Check his/her website – if you like it, does it matter what it’s called?  If you don’t like it, then don’t meet with the photographer – someone’s inherent artistic style isn’t going to change just because you say you like ‘casual portraits’.
2. Does the photographer shoot in mostly color, black and white, or both?
This may have made sense 10 or 15 years ago, but the VAST majority (dare I say ‘all’?) wedding photographers shoot digital now.  We shoot in color….we can MAKE black and white from that.  The appropriate question is “Do you shoot film or digital?”  THEN you can ask if it’s color/black and white or both.
3. What resolution do you shoot at?
Might not be a bad question – if the answer was going to mean anything to the person asking it.  Most photographers I know shoot in RAW format (which is not a ‘resolution’), although there are a few who shoot in jpeg and get gorgeous results.
4. How many rolls does he or she expect to shoot?
Again…10-15 years too old.
5. Will he or she have an assistant at the wedding? Will the assistant shoot, too? Can I meet him or her?
Maybe.  Depends on what package you buy.  Actually, ‘assistants’ rarely shoot.  They lug gear, set lights, download memory cards, handle extra equipment and a variety of ‘step and fetch it’ tasks.  There’s really no need to meet an assistant.

A ‘second shooter’ is a different matter.  And you’ll know if one is going to be there, because you’ll have to pay for him/her.  Most photographers hire second shooters that they know/trust.  You can ask to see a second shooter’s work if you want, but they are rarely (if ever) part of the sitdown meeting with the photographer.

6. What type of equipment will he or she be using? Will the lighting be intrusive?

Yes, you want to make sure your wedding photographer isn’t using a 6 year old point/shoot, we get that.  But do you really know the difference between a Rebel XSi and a 5DII?  Again, your best bet is looking at the photographer’s portfolio and talking to previous clients.

As far as lighting — what do you mean ‘intrusive’?  Am I going to run a flash during the ceremony?  No.  (and most churches don’t allow it anyway).  Will I have lights at ANY time?  Maybe – if I need them, I’ll bring a couple of stands for the formals.  But I take them down/put them away before the ceremony starts.  Not sure anyone knows what they mean by that question.

7. Will the photographer mark my proofs?

Um…most do online proofing.  There may or may not be a watermark (depending on the photographer).  Physical printed proofs – yes, there will probably be a watermark.  You might be surprised at how many people try to get their proofs scanned/printed so they don’t have to buy them from the photographer.
8. Can I keep the negatives or can I buy them?

Short answer – no.  A lot of photographers will part with a CD/DVD of print-ready images – most of them with a size restriction and a ‘print release’.  That basically means that you can PRINT the images only – not re-edit them, not re-crop them, not re-size them….nada.  Leave them as they are.  But no, reputable photographers will generally not part with their original files.

9. What is the photographer’s rate?
This one has no ‘set’ answer….most photographers will either have set packages that are listed in their marketing materials/website, or they build custom packages for each client based on a set hourly rate and any of the ‘extras’ the client may want.
10. What time will the photographer arrive and how long will he or she stay?

Does this really need to be asked?  We show up when it’s time to start taking pictures and we stay until the end of our contracted time – unless that time is extended by means of more $$.
11. Is there an overtime fee?
If you hire a photographer for 6 hours, that’s what they’re going to work.  She/he might be nice and stay an extra 1/2 hour or so, but if you want more time, then it needs to be paid for on the spot.
12. What will the photographer and assistant wear?

Seriously?  Daisy dukes, stilettos and a halter top….most photographers will dress appropriately for the venue.  Please keep in mind that we are working….we are not guests.  So, men will probable not wear a tie/jacket, but you can expect a polo or buttonup.  Women are not going to wear a dress/heels, but khakis and a blouse are not out of line.  We need to wear clothes that allow us to climb on chairs, lie on the ground, kneel, and run all over the small country you rented for your wedding day! 🙂

I’m not trying to slam any one particular person, but these questions keep popping up….I love answering questions, especially if the person asking knows why they’re asking the question and what the answer means.  I wonder if some of these magazines would be willing to weed out their ‘photographer questionnaire’…..