For those completely out of the social and political loop, Chelsea Clinton, daughter of the former president and current Secretary of State, married Mark Mezvinsky, son of two former members of Congress, last weekend. Weddings like this aren’t exactly the usual subject matter of this column, but the Clinton nuptials do point up an important subject - the division between the public sphere and the private life of those connected to celebrities and political figures.

I receive an interesting email newsletter called “Morning Jolt” five days a week written by Jim Geraghty, a political writer for the conservative National Review magazine. (I’m not on some exclusive list; anyone can sign up for the newsletter). Mr. Geraghty, while definitely not a Clintonista, provides a useful perspective about last weekend’s wedding.

Mr. Geraghty noted complaints from bloggers on the right about the nuptials, including the contention that they were “an over-the top massive celebration when the American people are suffering” and that the estimated $5 million cost of the wedding could have been used for charitable purposes.

Mr. Geraghty points out that the Clintons gave $10 million to charity between 2001 and 2010, but says that even if they were misers, “this is their money. They only have one child, Chelsea, and presuming Chelsea never divorces and remarries, this is it for them. Can you blame them for pulling out all the stops?”

Moreover, Mr. Geraghty states that “Bill Clinton is out of office and no one ever elected Chelsea to anything.” Chelsea never claimed to be a humble woman of the people. “So if her parents can afford it, why should she not get the cake that costs more than some cars.”

Basically, I think that Mr. Geraghty is on to something. While Bill and Hillary Clinton managed to win elections without the votes of many of us, Chelsea Clinton cannot fairly be labeled a public figure. Beyond a few more or less obligatory forays in support of her mother’s candidacies, she has pretty much avoided the spotlight and has not attempted to be a role model or political symbol for anything. She certainly is entitled to enjoy her new life with Mr. Mezvinsky without undue and untoward criticism.

But the Clintons are not the only family in public life subjected to unreasonable intrusions into their private life. The same can be said about the family of America’s most controversial politician, Sarah Palin. Ms. Palin’s life, generally including her personal life, is fair public fodder. People need some insight into her character as well as her stands on the issues of the day, so stories about her expensive campaign wardrobe, her support of hunting wildlife from helicopters or alleged mood swings, are completely legitimate. On the other hand, the line should be drawn at stories purely involving her daughter, Bristol.

While few would argue that Bristol showed good judgment in her personal life, the coverage of her pregnancy, her on-and-off (and maybe back on) relationship with Levi Johnston, has surely been beyond the pale. And this is true notwithstanding Bristol’s willingness to be a spokesperson for abstinence among unmarried teenagers and Levi’s proclivity to give interviews about the Palin family. Bristol is only 19 and like Chelsea Clinton, did not choose to thrust herself in the spotlight or to become a convenient springboard for attacks on her mother. A zone of privacy is appropriate for families all across the political spectrum.