But they had guns at their wedding too? Didn’t they?

Almost nine years ago we got married. Our wedding was inspired by one of the things we still enjoy doing together: watching movies.  For our invitations, we recreated some of our favourite movies including the famous Mr and Mrs Smith (a quick Google search will show that this has inspired many wedding posters).

Some of Garfield’s favourites were: Quantum of Solace and Scarface while mine were, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days and The Back-up Plan. Fun fact, Garfield probably won’t admit this in public, but Pretty Woman is probably just as much a favourite of his as it is mine.

The concept was shot in the studio and brought to life by an amazing photographer and a talented graphic designer. 

Props like the guns were added, colours of clothing were changed, backgrounds were changed, baby boots were placed in my hands, and I even got thigh-high boots because I did not own a pair.

I never dreamt that I would have to explain this, but the above changes were all achieved by a nifty tool/technique called… you guessed it…. Photoshop and a boss graphic artist.

Our wedding invitations were actual DVDs (I know, so old) and for the reception, we recreated a red-carpet movie premiere showcasing all the posters.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Why am I detailing all of this?

It could be a narcissistic obsession with my wedding. After all, it provides me with an excuse to flood you with throwbacks.

But in all seriousness, it’s because tongues are apparently wagging because a photograph has surfaced of an alleged police couple who recently got married and appear to be posing with guns at their wedding.

What does that have to do with us?

Well, (*insert eye roll*) the social media 'investigators' and 'justice seekers’ have decided to take this on as their new mission as they seek to make a comparison between our photos of yonder years and the current situation using buzz words like "favouritism", “Up Town” and "double standard".

In other words, so how dem a investigate dem (meaning the couple on the cover of the Star) when dem (meaning us) did use gun to?

The short answer is no. We did not use guns.

I’ve never considered myself the brightest bulb of the lot, but even from a cursory glance, it is readily apparent to me why the two things are different. But for those who may need more time to assimilate the facts, let me explain.

The last time I checked, there was no law against being creative. Our movie-themed wedding was a 'creative' process in which NO Actual Guns were used. The images were edited and the guns added to the posters much like an artist would for the cover of his album or a movie poster.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

What a shocker?  I know, like you, I’d like to imagine that my husband has a special relationship with 007 (the Bond franchise) and we were able to borrow a few of their guns. Heck, maybe next time, I’ll ask for a small cameo.

At the time of our wedding, Facebook was our primary social media and believe me, even then (surprise, surprise) these questions were asked and answered.

In law, we often talk about a case being decided on its own merits. I would suggest that there is an obvious difference between what appears to be a photo of a couple standing at their wedding posing with weapons in hand with onlookers in the background and a couple recreating movie posters (obviously photoshopped) which are included in the decor of the wedding. At best, the latter couple may be guilty of intellectual property infringement (but shhh...let's not go there).

Let me hastily declare that I do not know the couple in the photo now in circulation. For all I know, this may not even be a wedding, but a scene from a local movie or a music video. The guns may be props and the required permit was obtained.

I gather that is why there is an investigation to ascertain among other things whether 1. The couple in the photo are posing with real guns 2. If they are real guns, are they JCF issued weapons? 3. If they are not real guns, how did they obtain them?  4. Was there a permit for their use? Etcetera. Etcetera.

Only the couple, witnesses at the wedding and the probe can reveal the facts.

Truth be told, I feel almost silly responding to the wagging tongues, but recent history has taught us that if not immediately dispelled, alternative facts can take root and spread like wildfire. It is not always worth responding to the detractors, but sometimes, it is important to use your voice to share the facts.

We are in an era where everyone wants to be a social media activist. Everyone is ‘woke’ and we are always seeking a cause. Since race isn’t the big issue in Jamaica, the default is to try to make everything out to be a class issue.

I have heard utterances of, “Is because dem uptown.” “Is because dem have friends in high places.”

Is because this or that...

Not much bothers me, but the class card is deeply disturbing to me considering that I am merely a 'country girl'  trying to establish my place in this world.

May I suggest that some things are simply logical? The two scenarios are not comparable unless you are offended by our wedding theme which I quite understand as you do not have to like our taste. And even if you do believe they are comparable, I hope I have answered your question, by explaining how photoshop works. Just in case you missed it, the guns on our posters are quite like the boots that I am wearing on the Pretty Woman poster... they aren't real.

For those who are seeking 'justice', and who are trying to turn this "guns at a wedding story" into a double standard or class thing, quite frankly you should save your righteous indignation for a worthy cause.

There is no shortage of things to be upset about, let us start with violence against women.