I will be the first to admit that I know absolutely noting -- nichevo, zip, nada, zero, niente -- about how serious journalists are supposed to cover celebrity weddings.

The dress is supposed to be important, right? I understand that. But might the actual content of the wedding have something to do with the, well, wedding?

I ask this because the glamorous power duo of Ciara and Russell Wilson have finally tied the knot and the chatty folks at USA Today are so, so excited. Is this a news story?

Ciara and Russell Wilson are married!

The R&B star wed the NFL quarterback in England on Wednesday and confirmed the news on social media, sharing a photo of their happy day with the caption, "We are the Wilsons!"

The nuptials took place at Peckforton Castle in front of roughly 100 of their closest friends and family members, according to TMZ. The bride wore a custom lace gown by Roberto Cavalli and carried a bouquet of snow white blooms. On Tuesday, Ciara, 30, and Wilson, 27, were captured by paparazzi dressed up for their rehearsal dinner at Liverpool's Titanic Hotel.

Now, this "story" had to deal with the big news hook in this relationship (other than possible recent rap-related death threats and stuff) over the past year or two. You remember that, of course. In an earlier post I talked called it "Tim Tebow syndrome" and added

Good grief. Have we really reached the point where journalists are shocked, shocked that traditional Christian believers strive to follow 2,000 years of doctrine asking them to hold off on sex until after they have taken their wedding vows?

Or, are the world-weary journalists who cover pop culture (that includes sports, most of the time) predestined to roll their eyes when really hot superstars -- in multiple senses of that word -- affirm traditional doctrines on sex when asked awkward questions in public?

Looking back on that, it's important to note that Russell Wilson is a traditional, evangelical Protestant Christian. And his bride? The details of her faith have always been rather vague in the press.

And they remain vague on all of that. In fact, the USA Today story completely skips over the fact that this wedding may have had some religious content and context. I assume this was a religious rite? Who performed it? Do the bride and groom share a church, a pastor, a specific faith? Did they take vows?

The religious content of the story is all quite foggy and it's all linked to the sex angle. For example:

The famous pair have ... spoken out about choosing abstinence until marriage. The Seahawks quarterback described the decision at a Q&A at a church in San Diego last July.

"I will never forget she was on tour, she was traveling and I was looking at her in the mirror, sitting in her dressing room, she was getting ready to go, about 15 minutes before she went on stage. She was sitting there and God spoke to me and said ‘I need you to lead her … I told her right then and there. What would you do if we took all that extra stuff off the table and just do it Jesus way … because if you can really love somebody without that, then you can really love somebody," he said.

How did this mesh with Ciara's own faith?

Apparently that is not a crucial detail, other than her saying that this decision was difficult to honor -- but with positive side effects.

At Fashion Week in February, Ciara opened up about how challenging that decision was. "We're hanging in there," she told Cosmopolitan.com. "I'm not gonna lie. I'm human, so it is not easy, especially when I look at him and I think he is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen — that I've ever laid my eyes on, to be honest. I'm like, Look the other way! Look the other way!"

She added: "But he's such an awesome guy and the cool thing is that every day, we're growing with each other. We get to have really healthy conversations and focus on each other as people."

I know, I know. It's just a celebrity news story. It's entertainment fluff. Millions of people care, but for all of the wrong reasons. That has nothing to do with the coverage, of course.

Does this, by definition, mean that the religious elements in this union are kind of a wink, wink embarrassment? Why is it logical to ignore the religious details of a wedding in a story about the wedding?

Just asking.