Video killed the wedding announcement?

One of my favorite portions of the glorious time suck that is the New York Times Weddings & Celebrations page is the video that comes with it. Usually, it is a "Vows" video telling the story of a (yawn) couple who met at a gym, but the ones I like best are the State of the Union videos that revisit couples featured in previous Vows columns (you know, the big headliners who get a half page in the print version of the Times). Last week's was a particularly unique State of the Union video chronicling a couple who married, had two kids, and "changed and grew" to the point where she decided she needed to date a woman. Yeah, you read that right. Props to the NYTimes for chronicling a nontraditional happy ending and giving us a State of the Union that shows that sometimes a marriage made in the NYTimes doesn't last. In all my years of reading these, this is the first State of the Union I've seen that's touched on this once upon a time unspeakable concept, and, despite its bittersweet taste, I found it refreshing - especially when compared to the recent vows column that seemingly glorified the infidelity of the woman who married a member of Il Divo.

These two provide great examples of different ways the unraveling of a marriage has been treated in the Times. An infidelity that led to marriage to a pop opera star was described as an operatic opus, while the story of a couple who married despite what turned out to be unchangeable differences seems touching and deeply human. Infidelity, to my taste, should never be glorified but my question here is this: would I feel differently about the opera if it was a video instead? And would the bittersweet story turn bitter if it were words on the page instead of the faces of the two people who ended up apart?

For those interested, here's a link I dug up of the Walsh/Gaugy pre-split announcement: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/21/style/weddings-vows-candace-walsh-and-peter-gaugy.html