Crist kisses the bride, but she wants more

Before an audience filled with leaders of Florida’s business and political communities, Gov. Charlie Crist married businesswoman Carole Rome Friday in a traditional 20 minute ceremony in St. Petersburg that started promptly at 7 p.m. as chimes tolled the hour.

Trumpet Voluntary by Henry Purcell was played as the bride was escorted down the aisle by her daughters Skylar, 10 and Jessica, 12. Crist smiled broadly as he stood beside his father, Dr. Charles Crist of St Petersburg, who served as best man.

When the Rev. David Miller, pastor of the church, asked who was there to give the bride away, the bride’s two daughters by a previous marriage quickly answered, “I do’’ and “I do.’’

The vows were traditional with each of them pledging to “have and to hold from this day forward for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish until death us do part.’’

The Rev. Miller urged the couple to invite God into their daily lives and noted that Jesus chose a wedding in Cana to perform his first miracle. There he turned water into wine when the wine for the wedding guests ran out.

“I’m sure the good folks at the Vinoy will make sure that doesn’t happen tonight,’’ Miller added as the crowd laughed. The ceremony was followed by a reception at the Renaissance Vinoy Hotel & Resort.

Most of the guests were prominent politicians, business leaders and lobbyists from all over the state. Fox national newsman Geraldo Rivera and his wife, Erica were also in the crowd.

Rivera said he met Crist in 2002 and promised to come to his wedding after Crist made an appearance at Rivera’s mother’s 85th birthday party in Siesta Key.

Others spotted in the audience included former U.S. Sen. Connie Mack, his son, U.S. Rep. Connie Mack and his wife, U.S. Rep. Mary Bono; former Gov. Bob Martinez; Attorney General Bill McCollum, Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Bronson; former Senate Presidents Ken Pruitt, Jim Scott  and John McKay; St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker, U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, Carl Kuttler, president of St. Petersburg College and Republican fundraiser Al Austin of Tampa.

Business leaders on hand included J. Charles Gray, senior partner at Gray Robinson in Orlando; Tom Kuntz, chief executive officer at Suntrust; Sherrill Hudson, CEO of TECO; Lew Hay, CEO of Florida Power & Light.

Lobbyists included Ron Book, Brian Ballard, David Rancourt, Richard Heffley and Rodney Barretto.

When Gov. Charlie Crist kissed the bride, it was tender and brief, apparently too brief to suit his bride, who gently put her hands on his face and kissed him again.

The church, famous for its Tiffany stained glass windows, was decorated for Christmas, with two Christmas trees on either side of the altar and boughs of greenery looped across the balconies.

Large, elegant bouquets of cream colored roses and hydrangeas were on either side of the altar. The couple lit a candle in honor of the bride's parents, both of whom are deceased, and for other members of the family who couldn't be there.

View wedding photos

--Lucy Morgan, Times Staff Writer (Final Writethru)

Comments

I bet she does 'want more' ....

[Commandante]

Oh Cuba's not so bad they named a street after Crist - IT'S FILLED WITH WHAT???

[Cat Man Too]

Nice writing, Lucy. Glad you got to cover the event.

[real estate rebate]

good luck!

[Ewwwww]

She's going to be left "wanting" often. Charlie's been holding out all these months .... "paying up is a drag". Oh My!

[Trish]

Splashy weddings for the
middle-aged seem more than a bit
ridiculous, especially involving the
tweens from the first marriage.
The white dress, veil, etc... goofy, if not tacky. I guess people that
old can be as silly as they wish,
as many times at the alter as they
wish.

[Stan Buie]

Yeah, she'll be wanting more alright, 'cause she ain't gonna get it from gay Charlie.....better hire herself a gigolo.

[Peggie]

I am sure this was a beautiful wedding. I wish for the Governor, his new bride, and her two precious children a wonderful life together. My advice to those of you who write such awful things, go find something useful to do. Your words are mean and sound petty. At this wonderful season, I pray that God will give meaning to your lives and that he will give you a loving and tender heart. Having a heart filled with such vicious resentment hurts only you. God bless each of you and Merry Christmas...

[Dan]

Peggie, thank you for your inspired message to our friends who dwell on the negative incessantly. May the Governor and Mrs. Crist have a long life of shared love, happiness, committment and success. May the blessings of this season be accepted by all, all of whom are children of God.

Peggy and Dan: get a life! This stunt had nothing to do with Christ or our Father, it was nothing more than a show -- like everything this guy does. I could care less about the sexual orientation issue that underlies many of these comments, but to think of this as anything more than a show is laughable. Now, there, go put your heads back in the sand -- and do have a Merry Christmas!

"She wants more????" As someone who voted for Crist, so do I. But could we start with becoming a real governor? At least with the new Mrs. Crist in the mansion, we finally will have an adult resident "in the house." Charlie, show up to work, not just for the cameras. Engage in something more than your quasi-Hollywood antics. Don't just act like how you think a Governor should act, be a Governor. And could you hurry.

Isn't that just great!!! A "white" wedding for a couple of marital losers who are taking another stab at marriage...We don't allow same-sex marriage because that would "destroy the sanctity of marriage" according to the holy rollers and religiony poobahs, but we allow this sort of mockery. For the hyper-religious out there (who, by the way, should keep their crap to themselves and out of the public arena),
if you truly want to "defend the sanctity of traditional marriage," then outlaw divorce and criminalize adultery. Otherwise, STFU.

[Eduardo]

Oh Peggie, dear! You are melting my gay heart. Soooooooooooooo much love.

May I guess how you voted on Nov 4th on amendment 2? I betcha --as the equally loving Sarah Pain would say-- that you voted to f___ my right to marry the man I love.

Go and have your merry Christmas and leave us alone.

[Eduardo]

I am agnostic so I want to ask one question to you all God people:

Does Him approve of a gay man --who obviously cannot love a woman-- marrying her anyway?

Does Him approve of sham marriages?

[Eduardo]

Oops! I ended up making two questions. So many questions in this show that Charlie has put on, so little time.

Funny thing is, McCain made him get engaged and then he went with the real deal of the anti-gay bigots, Sarah Palin. (I said the real deal because W, Mel Martinez and Charlie are not bigots, the try to pass as ones for political purposes.) But Sarah, she really believes the crap. Good luck, Charlie. Happy marriage to you, sweatheart

[Eduardo]

Finally, I don't think she wants more. Not from Charlie. She ain't a spring chicken so she knows what she is getting into.

Wait some years and I betcha she will become a celebrity of some sort.

Peggy is typical of the non-thinking emotionalism prevalent in "religious" circles.

[bbracken]

And then there is the so-called "enlightened" left who are so intolerant of religion that one must ask: "What are you afraid of? hmm?" I thought liberalism was all about tolerance...seems that most of the liberals I know are some of the most intolerant people I know. This is a democracy...if you go thru the trouble of putting something up for vote...dont complain when it doesnt go your way. Democracy worked as planned. Now, however, comes the end run to completely void the democratic results and force an outcome by getting the judiciary to "legislate" once again.

[bbracken]

You know...there is but one sentence in the constitution regarding religion (separation of church and state??)"Congress shall pass no laws regarding the establishment of religion." In other words: it was left open for the states themselves to institute state religions. There is no possible way to interpret that (using any form of logic or intellect) as a complete separation of church and state.
I believe there should be, and there is a process for making that happen. It is called an amendment. However, our judiciary system has taken upon themselves the right to legislate according to their belief system. Sound dangerous? Ok...perhaps one day they will "legislate" that it is constitutional to eliminate the bottom 10% of the population for the common good.

[bbracken]

As far as non-thinking emotionalism...I suppose you would call Einstein that as well. Science, in his opinion, proved the existence of a supreme being, since without such guidance the laws of physics would not be constant throughout the universe. "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" (Einstein)

[Eduardo]

bbracken:

This is the text of the 1st amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

By your own logic, Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech but the states can?

[Al]

"Seperation of Church and State" has been hijacked for no other reason than to distort its true meaning. You may have the right to believe any way you would like, the government will not dictate how or what you believe, nor will they pass no law regarding the establishment of religion. This country has alway and will alway believe in God and promote our God given right to Freedom... Something that the self centered left obviiously tries to obolish.. Just listen to these Gay liberals, Such hate, then someone mentions opening your heart and you spew venom? Haters in sheeps clothing! Merry Christmas..

[bbracken]

Absolutely...how can a restriction placed specifically on Congress be extended to all forms of govt with any logic? What is the logic behind that? Can you explain how we should allow our judiciary system to make such broad and sweeping interpretations? Dont get me wrong, I believe in freedom of speech and I fault the original writers of the first amendment for how it is worded. I also believe in separation of church and state...heaven forbid we allow religious leaders to dictate policy, or allow the state to dictate religious practices or prohibit them.

I feel there is a great danger in allowing the courts to interpret more than what is written. As I said...perhaps one day they will "interpret" as constitutional the right to limit childbirth (license), or to outright eliminate a portion of our population.
Wasnt it the Supreme Court that once ruled slavery as being constitutional?

[paul]

Funny how some think that people who express religious thoughts "should keep their crap to themselves and out of the public arena" find their anti-religuous thoughts fit for public consumption. I guess you promote censorship of any and all ideas contrary to your own?

[bbracken]

I mean..Holy Crap man...why is it that we (citizens of the US) constantly grant more control and power to the government than was originally intended by our forefathers?
What was it that Ben Franklin once wrote about giving up freedom for security? If we do that, then we deserve neither.
I am well aware of the "living document" philosophy, and that is a dangerously lazy way to give additional authority and power to those who shouldnt have it.
It is a living document in the fact that provisions were made to adapt and change the constitution to meet our country's needs.
Did you know the amendment allowing for personal income tax was not properly ratified?

[bbracken]

Funny how liberal tolerance only extends to their own belief system (or lack thereof) but does not extend to any other point of view.

I have always encouraged my children to express their own beliefs. Not to accept Kool-aid, but rather to think for themselves. One is conservative in thought, the other quite liberal.

[Eduardo]

bbracken,

Ok, I respect your consistence regarding the interpretation of the first amendment, although I have to say it is the first person I see that interpret it that way.

As for: I feel there is a great danger in allowing the courts to interpret more than what is written. As I said...perhaps one day they will "interpret" as constitutional the right to limit childbirth (license), or to outright eliminate a portion of our population.
Wasnt it the Supreme Court that once ruled slavery as being constitutional?

Slavery WAS constitutional until the 14th amendment came in 1865.

You are stretching the logic here a lot with saying that the court could find a right to limit childbirth. That would be exactly the opposite: curtailing the right to bear the amount of children you have, which will fall in the category of, gasp, the right to privacy. Kind of funny. Imagine that the people of Florida limit the number of children that a couple could have (just as they limited my right to marry) and the Supreme Court says: no, Florida voters can't infringe the right to privacy of Florida individuals. would you side with the SC?

As for "outright eliminate a portion of our population" C'mon, that would be against a lot of the ENUMERATED rights in the constitution.

[Eduardo]

"I wonder if she's seen his itty-bitty pee pee yet?"

I betcha she hasn't

[Eduardo]

JB:

Your mom sucks so hard (no pun intended) that not even you can defend her.

OK, gotta do some stuff. Bye, haters.

[bbracken]

"Ok, I respect your consistence regarding the interpretation of the first amendment, although I have to say it is the first person I see that interpret it that way."

I do not interpret what I read with my own personal belief system. It says what it says in black and white, regardless of what I "want" it to say.
Therein lies the difference between me and the Supreme Court.

As for slavery being constitutional: It was because the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were not people and had no rights. How's that for an interpretation? Where does it say in the constitution that it is ok to enslave blacks? It doesnt. Your arguement is circular and non-logical.
It was only constitutional because the Supreme Court ruled so.

I feel the "right to privacy" as expressed in the constitution is also interpreted in broad sweeping strokes that have little to do with it's original intent.

If said interpretations are so objective, then why is it that the makeup of the court plays such a huge role in how it rules? This is absolutely a weakness of the system. An objective ruling, by definition, should not be subject to the opinions of those making the rulings, and yet we all know the courts do NOT rule objectively. Hence...the hotly contested appointments of judges related to their political views.

The last 2 sentences pretty much invalidates any arguement against the need for a strict interpretation of the constitution as opposed to (scuse the use) a liberal one.

To justify birth licenses...all it would take is a very loose interpretation of "Promote the common welfare" phrase. Interpreting such is not at all out of line with a decision which supported, oh, say, abortion for instance. Wherein the rights of the unborn are pretty much ignored due to the "politics of the day".

[bbracken]

"You are stretching the logic here a lot with saying that the court could find a right to limit childbirth. That would be exactly the opposite: curtailing the right to bear the amount of children you have, which will fall in the category of, gasp, the right to privacy."

I am not stretching logic at all. I am merely considering the history of Court rulings over the last 200 years. Perhaps you should look into how drastically the "objective opinion" of the court related to constitutional interpretation has changed in relation to the values and politics of the period.
Your view of privacy is merely the current view, and not one that is likely to remain written in stone. To deny that is true is to deny history and logic and absolute truth.
History is full of examples supporting my claims, and those who ignore history are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past.
More than likely the pendulum will swing in a more liberal direction before it begins to swing the other way.
You will see, in the next 10 years, a Supreme Court ruling that will stretch the original intent of our Founding Fathers to a degree not seen before.
Part of the problem is...once the Court has established such far reaching and extravagant powers, it is very difficult to reverse the course.

[ManlyMan]

You pansy boys need to understand this world is not yours, nor will your unnatural acts ever be considered "normal" as much as you try to force that opinion on the rest of us.

There is nothing natural about sex between animals or people of the same sex. When it does happen it is an anomoly and a deviation from nature.

[Hizdog]

I don't understand all of the crap surrounding the bride wearing white, and a veil... You obviously have no idea what white on a bride signifies in a wedding.. And it has nothing to do with virginity, or purity..... For your research, start with the ancient Greeks...

[Eduardo]

@ManlyMan

Why do you care so much? Fighting some desire, maybe?

[ManlyMan]

How typically gay to assume such, Eduardo. It's one of the last bastions of defense when a gay person claims the reason someone doesn't agree with their lifestyle because they are fighting their own inner homosexuality.

Sorry buddy... I love women too much and fail to see the attraction in a man's hairy butt. You can keep your little fantsy of me, though. I'll give you that.

I guess next you'll move on to claiming that I was molested as a child, huh?

I thought I saw Arlene and he husband last night in tallahassee, so she didn't go to the wedding.

[Absolute Truth]

ManlyMan acts tough on forums, but bet he's a bottom behind closed doors

With a name like "ManlyMan" just makes me automatically think: How Queer!

[jackieblue]

Okay, if Jesus loved ALL people (including gays) enough to die for their sins, why can't those who claim to love Him, and follow Him, find a little love and tolerance for the same gays? And besides that, you got your little amendment, so why all the nasty tones and mean-spirited hatred? Let me introduce you to Jesus Christ...

[jackieblue]

Okay, if Jesus loved ALL people (including gays) enough to die for their sins, why can't those who claim to love Him, and follow Him, find a little love and tolerance for the same gays? And besides that, you got your little amendment, so why all the nasty tones and mean-spirited hatred? Let me introduce you to Jesus Christ...

[Eduardo]

ManlyMan,

With that nickname you are probably not so manly and most likely ugly as hell. No, I don't do internet fantasies. I've got an open, honest life.

As for "How typically gay to assume such, Eduardo. It's one of the last bastions of defense when a gay person claims the reason someone doesn't agree with their lifestyle because they are fighting their own inner homosexuality."

Not really. It is the ones who OBSESS with the stuff that generally struggle with fighting the desire to put a nice fat, juicy c_ck on their mouth. But you know your stuff better than me, that I concede.

Whats the name of the nitwit who put the title on this story.

Whats the name of the nitwit that put the title on this story

[Dave]

Homophobes are no better than racists.

I recall that good Southern fundamentalist Christians opposed interracial marriage in the '60s, too.

Many religious people (not all) deserve contempt from thinking men and women. They are embarrassing.

Good job, Lucy!