
The New York Times Weddings section proves that magazine features as well as tons of money and fame can fan the flames of marriage - especially when the famous millionaire is an old/fat/bald man and the woman is much younger and hotter than the man (yes, Gothamist knows the women are accomplished, but let's face it, they're also really attractive). The featured Vows column was about the marriage of famed writer, Salman Rushdie, and model-cookbook author, Padma Lakshmi. Rushdie was "intrigued" by a tabloid's feature about Lakshmi, who provides one of the more disturbing quotes ever from the Vows section: "'This couldn't be Salman Rushdie,' Ms. Lakshmi remembered thinking. He seemed to her more like a distant uncle whom 'my mother had bragged to all about me.'" Salman Rushdie, fatwa-victim and fanboy!

Then there's the marriage of former GE chairman, Jack Welch marrying Suzy Wetlaufer, who met when Wetlaufer was interviewing the then-married Welch for the Harvard Business Review. We stand by our position that Wetlaufera write a book about marrying a millionaire.
With 250 guests, the Lakshmi-Rushdie nuptials included Lou Reed, Steve Martin, Tina Brown, Ismail Merchant, Julie Taymor, Jay McInerney, and Diane von Furstenburg. The Wetlaufer-Welch affair had 75 guests - Vernon Jordan and Matt Lauer among them. Advantage: Lakshmi-Rushdie, especially because their wedding was in New York City, but the Wetlaufer-Welch wedding probably had a better goodie bag.





Salman Rushdie looks like Frasier Crane.
Larry Ellison's wife Melanie Craft has already written TWO books about how to marry a billionaire. "Trust Me" and "Man Trouble"
Does Salman Rushie know he's sporting the Stanley Kubrick look or is it an unconscious thing?
Is it wrong that I wish that, I were to marry, that I would be deemed "good enough" for the Times' Wedding and Celebrations section? But then I get all riled about the classist nature of the section at the same time. It's just a grown-up version of simultaneously wanting to be deemed "cool" and to reject being lumped in with the "cool" kids.
Iloved the juxtaposition of those two famous/notorious couples with the one other announcement on the page--a nice, normal, sweet-looking couple.
"if that's Rushdie....they're real!" - J. Seinfeld
Jen W. You don't want to end up on that bourgeois page. It seems that having influential parents is a factor. If you read closely, some of the couples have fairly pedestrian resumes: Jack is an investment banker and Jill is a lawyer. The fact that men often refuse to join the bride in the photo says something too (what, I dont' know). Okay, I'm the one with the problem because I read it like some people stare at car accidents.
Fleshbot dug up some nude pics of Mrs. Rushdie from an early photo shoot in her career ... she's hot!
amy, for a second there, i started to type fleshbot, but then realized i'm at work. oops.
and who else thinks that rushdie is at least 2 times her weight?
From my chair: it's one thing when the lure across the years is wealth or power, another when the lure is outrageous talent or brilliance. Wealth and power tarnish easily. A visionary mind or a finely-tuned gift does not.
I wish the Rushdies happiness and luck: anyone who can write "Haroun and the Sea of Stories" should really be a father.