Flowers for the wedding. Boardwalk Pavilion, May 18, 2012. iPhone photo by anonymous.
Bride enters the Pavilion. Date stamp says “5:13 p.m. May 18, 2012”
By Paul Goldfinger, Editor Blogfinger.net 5/18/12.
We received a report of a wedding last Friday afternoon, May 18, at about 5 p.m., in the Boardwalk Pavilion. This was surprising because, as many Grovers know, in 2007, there was a controversy surrounding the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association’s denial for a civil union ceremony to be held there. After that dispute, the CMA changed its policy and would no longer allow any ceremonies to be held there including weddings and civil unions. Currently there is a sign posted which says, among other things, that “this building is private property, owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association.” It also says, “This facility is not available for private events or ceremonies.”
The report of the wedding came from an individual who asked to remain anonymous. She said that she is a long-time resident of the Grove, and this is what she reported, dated May 23, 2012:
“Paul, it was a beautiful wedding. I just happened to be on the boardwalk at about 4:30 p.m. (Friday, May 18, 2012) and saw these people very dressed up (they were clearly not going to Bamboozle!). I asked one of them what was going on. She said they were getting ready for a wedding.
“There was a large bus parked across the street from the pavilion. This guest pointed out that the bride’s family was concerned about parking because of the festival, so they had rented a bus to bring the guests in. Absolutely no mention of use of venue. At about 4:50 p.m. all of the guests were in the pavilion complete with flowers, keyboardist and singer…..waiting for the bride. A police car pulled up, and the officer sat for a minute watching, but then left. There was no reaction from the guests to the police car; in fact, they were fairly unconcerned.
“At 5:00 p.m., a trolley (Lake Como Trolley Company) pulled up across the street. From the passenger side, three bridesmaids and a maid of honor proceeded across the street and met the ring bearer and flower girl. Next came the bride and her escort. I say all this to suggest that this clearly was a well-planned affair. The groom and his many attendants were waiting at the front of the pavilion.
“I do not want to stereotype, but this just did not look like a family that was having a rushed ‘unsanctioned’ wedding. I just don’t think they were wedding day risk-takers.
“I am aware that this facility is not supposed to be used for ceremonies. I have younger family members who have wanted to get married there since they were youngsters. I have heard rumors that weddings were still going on there, but this time I was a witness to one.
“I sincerely hope you check into this and inform your readers if the CMA is turning a blind eye towards certain couples getting married there. ”
After some initial difficulty getting a response from the CMA, we heard from Mr. Ralph Del Campo, Acting Chief Administrative Officer. We spoke by phone. He referred to the incident as “a rumor” which they were investigating. He said that the CMA has not changed its policies vis a vis ceremonies in the Pavilion, and he said that they certainly did not sanction any wedding there.
When I told him that we had a first person account and some photos, he said that if a wedding had been held there, it would have been very “disrespectful” on the part of those who participated. He concluded by saying that the CMA wants to have a good relationship with all groups in the Grove. He also said that he was anxious to see the report and photos which we were going to post.
SOUNDTRACK: Did someone say, “Hey…Cheer up. It’s a wedding!” Let’s remember that with a love song—–by Elvis:
So should we assume the Camp Meeting Association is adopting a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy?
What lawsuit are you referring to? Ah, the North End. Wasn’t there a huge structure there in the past? The OGHOA? I thought they changed their name to the ” I want to park in front of my house Assn”.
Who do you think successfully filed an expensive lawsuit some years ago to keep the boardwalk commercial free? The CMA?…WRONG answer. That would be the Ocean Grove Home Owners Assn. YES! The OGHOA.
And who do you think is planning the layout that does not follow the Street and Avenue grid of the rest of Ocean Grove? (hint…. think North End)
Happy Old Grover: My family has been tenters for over 45 years and have been active in the town and CMA for over 80 years. Who do you think did the layout on the town and the flare? Who do you think keeps the beach so beautiful and the boardwalk commercial free? Wow, you didn’t know the CMA had a hand in that? Well maybe if you did some research on the town you live in you would be better informed.
I’m sure not everyone is here because of the CMA, but some of us are. We are here because of the Bible Studies in the Tabernacle six days a week, the Bible studies on the Beach, the Services in the Pavilion, which is our summer church overlooking the dunes, the beach and the Cross. We are here for the living Christmas pageant on the beach. We are here for the phenomenal preaching in the Great Auditorium. All CMA related, even though I barely scratched the surface. I understand that not everyone is here for those things, but please do not dismiss that many of us are.
Mr Blogfinger, you do a fantastic job! This forum is one of a kind & well done. Thank You.
PS: I download all your vintage music– love it!
While many may not have moved here for the CMA, no one can doubt that they have a significant influence on how things are the way they are in OG. If you live here, you lease from them
Also, the CMA has been here long before any of us. They have been pretty consistent with their positions and how applies to their faith.
You may like it here because of the people, but the people are here because of the religion, and the CMA has strove to keep that alive. I wonder how many residents can trace their family to Methodists.
To: “Waterseller” – You said above: “I can’t understand why so many commenters on Blogfinger are so against the Camp Meeting Assn. and wish them ill will. The reason many of them moved to OG was because it is such a good place to live. The main reason it is such is the CMA.”
You just haven’t been here long enough to get to know them and the impression residents have of them. I have been here 25 years, and I assure you, I did NOT move to OG because the CMA “made it such a good place to live.” I’ve never in all those years had anything to do with the CMA. They have done nothing to enrich my living here.
The reason it’s such a good place to live is because of the people I have become friends with here, and the unique layout of the town (flare pattern), and the ocean (which the CMA does NOT own, and did NOT put here!)
I know many people who are not fond of the CMA. We don’t consider them the reason for our happiness here.
Year-rounder: CMA doesn’t want to allow same-sex union ceremonies at the pavilion. They feel it is not in compliance with the Methodist religion, allowing heterosexual ceremonies and not homosexual is illegal. So no one is allowed.
Year-rounder: You don’t seem to understand what happened here five years ago. As far as the CMA is concerned, the Pavilion is a religious site which is open to all, but they will not, on religious grounds, allow it to be used for Civil Union ceremonies (Same-sex marriage is not available in NJ). Thus, rather than being accused (again) of discrimination, they choose to ban all ceremonies in that venue.
Anxious to hear a response from Mr. Del Campo now that he sees the rumor wasn’t just smoke. Someone from the CMA really should address this issue. Can you just tell us what the problem would be to allow “ceremonies” again? It would be a great venue as a wedding/union site, and off-season, hotels and restaurants could benefit from all the guests who came to town. And, I probably speak for many when I say I’d love to be walking the boards during a light snowfall and come upon something as beautiful as what this photographer saw.
Hurray for this couple. I am glad they got away with a beautiful wedding in a beautiful venue. However, I am still concerned about all of those who want to be married there. Will the CMA ever change their position on this? One can only hope…..
Ken raises a good point about having a Plan B. This bride and groom’s wedding ceremony seemed exceedingly short (like it was over in 5 minutes)..
There is an old saying (not Biblical) that might apply here, “Let sleeping dogs lie.” For whatever reason the CMA is turning a blind eye should be accepted for what it is. But any bride expecting to use the Pavilion for a wedding ceremony should have a Plan B in the event a Gospel Group or Preacher has gained CMA approval to use the Pavilion during that same time slot. You never know!
Chuckie, there have been gays in OG for many years—never had a problem until recently. They didn’t move here on account of the CMA but because the town was a good place to live. Credit the CMA with that.
I think that a majority of year round residents are not involved with the CMA or it’s activities. Many people I’ve met here have no clue about the CMA, the Auditorium, or the history of the town. To them, it is just another shore town. That is their right, and they are welcome, but the control that the CMA had over the town in the past kept it from becoming another animal house town that other shore towns have now become.
Will we be surprised when the ACLU sues the CMA again over something like the baptisms or funeral services I’ve seen on the beach, or even the scripture passages stenciled on the wall?
Is there no lesson that can be learned from the Auditorium incident of last year?
By the way, has the pavilion been consecrated as a religious structure?
Waterseller – perhaps you should look into the recent history of the CMA, starting with when they stopped governing the town and coming forward to today, including their relation with the LGBT community (who, incidentally, most likely did not move to OG on account of the CMA).
Exactly Bullets.
I’m not surprised that someone had a well planned (and beautiful) “guerrilla wedding” at the pavilion. I’m sure it’s not the first and won’t be the last “guerrilla wedding”. I just hope the CMA is turning a blind eye to all of them.
I can’t understand why so many commenters on Blogfinger are so against the Camp Meeting Assn. and wish them ill will. The reason many of them moved to OG was because it is such a good place to live. The main reason it is such is the CMA.
From a law enforcement stand point, while our patrolman stopped to watch, there was nothing illegal occurring, perhaps trespassing but that would require a complainer, IE the CMA
Personally, I’m glad they “got one over” on the CMA. I think its hysterical. They got caught with their pants down so to speak. LOL
(“The CMA what? Sorry, never heard of them. Just thought it was a pretty setting”)
If it was a “surprise wedding” — I have to believe they knew the rules and had the courage to go ahead and risk breaking them. Ah — the stuff that love stories are made of!
Someone in that long list of CMA trustees had to have heard about it. Maybe this bride and groom have stumbled across the perfect way to get around this silly policy — with everyone saving face. You can have your wedding or civil union at the pavilion. You just have to know that the CMA doesn’t approve. I could live with that — although I would far prefer for the CMA to revisit this and realize that it’s one of those few issues that make people question the “Christianity” of Ocean Grove .
Can’t wait to hear what they have to say. Kudos for some great investigative reporting!
Nancy, I am personally a rule follower also. I am also a long time Ocean Grover that feels that weddings should be allowed at the pavillion. It is a perfect venue. If we all make a huge deal about this event what will be the outcome? This is not the first wedding since the ban. Do we need to use security patrols that are much needed elsewhere preventing crime and theft in OG to camp out at the pavillion to police impromptu weddings? I am hopeful that the new CMA president and administration will rethink the current philosophy in place and bring us back to what OG is all about. Let’s just all wish this adventurous couple the best!
I’m torn. I’m a rule follower. But the bride …
I heard that a wedding was rumored to be taking place that day from my college aged children. They said it was a “surprise” wedding not known to the CMA. One of their friends knew a member of the wedding party. Just because it was not approved does not mean it was not well planned. I don’t know anything about the couple. Maybe they just did not know the issues and rules concerning the pavillion, or maybe they just didn’t care. I personally wish them all the best!
I saw them setting up the flowers and the music. It was very obviously a wedding and no one seemed concerned or nervous in the set up crew. There were all sorts of Ocean Grovers walking the boards–I can’t believe that no one from Camp Meeting was not informed in some way. Maybe some of the guests were housed in town and local B&Bs know something. It gets curiouser and curiouser…