I was not sure if this was an oversight, or if the author simply assumed that there would be some relationship between the couple and the person performing the wedding ceremony. Or perhaps there was an underlying sense that the ceremony is not as important as the reception or party that follows. To me, it raised the question of which is greater, the ceremony officially uniting the couple, or the party that celebrates the ceremony? To be sure, if it is a question of simple economics, the party gets a far greater expenditure of time and money. I understand how that works.
However, such a emphasis begs the question. Brides, more than grooms for the most part, typically have a mental picture of what they want their wedding day to look like, and part of that picture includes them standing in front of a roomful of carefully selected people, holding hands with (or kissing) the man of their dreams, dressed in an elegant dress, with a minister, or officiant of some sort, smiling and blessing their union. The ceremony is part of the wedding, and needs to be a part of the carefully thought-through wedding plans.
A good wedding minister or officiant can help create the exact ceremony that you, the couple getting married, will want. So your selection of a wedding officiant is just as important as every other choice that you make together. You don't want your reception to be boringly cookie-cutter, looking like every other reception you have attended. My guess is that you don't want your guests to snooze through your wedding ceremony either. What do you think?