A man in California faced a three-year legal battle because he wanted to take his wife's family name after they married, rather than have her take his.
Michael Buday wanted to take his wife's surname after marriage but found that the DMV wouldn't issue him a new license in that name.
Women get to change their names all the time, and Buday figured it was his right to change his. Plus, he promised his new wife that he would take her name, Bijon, because their were no sons in her father's family to carry on the Bijon name.
So, what's in a name? A three-year legal battle for starters. Today, Buday, uh, Bijon was granted the right to become Michael Bijon. Strike up one for women's liberation.
The couple were married on Aug. 20, 2005 and now, for the first time legally, the Bijons are united in name and relationship.
Prior to his lawsuit, if Buday wanted to make the change to Bijon, he would have had to pay court fees of more than $300, advertise his plans in newspaper for four weeks and get judicial approval.
The traditional method of Bijon taking on Buday's name would have cost
somewhere between about $50 and $90. And that's it. No newspaper announcement, no judicial approval.
With help from the American Civil Liberties Union, the couple filed a federal lawsuit in 2006 alleging sex-based discrimination in the issuance of marriage and driver's licenses.
In settlement agreements, changes have been made in state Department of Motor Vehicle and Department of Health Services policies and forms allowing Buday to become Michael Bijon.
This makes me think.
In ages past, women weren't regarded as fully equal before the law. In old times they were given in marriage as bartering chips: their parents (or, in the case of noblewomen, the King and his priorities) would determine to whom they would be given in marriage, in many cases without so much as asking them. This is still the practice in some more primitive cultures of Africa and parts of the Asian sub-continent.
The practice (in Western civilization, at least) of having the woman partner in marriage take her husband's last name arose from that perspective. She had been the 'property' of her parents; she was now the 'property' of her husband; therefore, the name change indicated what was effectively a change of ownership. Until relatively recently, even if she inherited wealth from her parents, it became the property of her husband, who could do with it as he pleased.
Fortunately we're past those days now (at least in law: there are still tragically many cases where an estranged husband will kill his wife and children, because - he feels - if he can't have them, no-one else will, a reflection of the ancient 'ownership' prejudice). There's no logical, rational reason for a woman to take her husband's name any more. However, it survives as a cultural inheritance, and is still common.
My question is: should it survive at all? If not, what should replace it? Personally, I'd have no problem if a couple each chose to keep their original surnames, or both adopted the husband's, or both adopted the wife's. Sure, there'd be some practical issues (for example, which surname would the children take?). One might get around those issues by adopting both surnames in a double-barreled, hyphenated arrangement, I guess (although after a few generations, the number of hyphenated surnames might become mind-boggling!).
What's your take? Is it time for the surname-changing issue to go away? If so, what might replace it?
Peter
Hyphenated surnames are not so uncommon here, but I believe the children usually only get the father's surname.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, why not let married couples choose which surname to adopt? Heck let them pick a brand new one to have together for all I care.
I don't think it makes a difference.
ReplyDeleteIn England, when a female was the sole heir to a title, it was fairly common for her husband to change his last name to hers, or to hyphenate them, with the name that went with the title last.
Couples/families are doing all sorts of interesting things with last names these days beyond the obvious-- including all hyphenating (like my husband and I), combining their names to create a new one (Wilson & Field become Filson or Wield), choosing a totally new name of special significance (Bell for mindfulness or Dakota because the couple met and married there) or to give the girls Mom's last name and the boys Dad's.
ReplyDeleteI am actually a Family Naming Expert and I assist those deciding on a name. My work has been seen in The Los Angeles Times, PINK Magazine, and iParenting.com. Check it out at www.NameCounsel.us.
If you're so inclined, I'd love for you to complete my NAME SURVEY about all this at www.TheNameSurvey.com.
Great post!
One reason some women that I know take their husband's name is to reduce confusion as to marital state.
ReplyDeleteI kept my original name through two marriages. My children have my name as a "second" middle name, but have their father's surname. I could always tell when my Daughter was angry with her Daddy...she'd use both my name and his, capitalizing my name and using lower case for his.
ReplyDeleteWith this marriage, I started out with my original name. Now, I use my husband's name most of the time with my "maiden name as a middle name, since I otherwise don't have one.
But when it will cause confusion, such as in my home town, I revert to using my original name.
To me, taking a common last name is a symbol of unity - "where 2 become as 1" - as part of the marriage vows.
ReplyDeleteI think it should be up to the couple to take either last name they prefer. Who, EXACTLY, is the government to tell us otherwise? Nice to see the ACLU on the "right" side of a case for once.
The children should be given to the common last name as the parents. Anonymous makes another good point; a common last name really helps others understand one's marital status.
I'm sorry - a Family Naming Expert? I'm torn between laughing and being impressed that you have carved that niche out into a (presumably) successful business.
Like PT Barnum said.....
Steve
I know it is funny, right? And my odd last name makes it even funnier. Someone once joked that taking naming advice from someone named Utt-Grubb must be like getting interior decorating tips from Ray Charles! I explained that I help people choose a name that is personally meaningful rather than nice sounding-- and yes, it is a very successful business-- but I certainly see the humor in it all.
ReplyDeleteThis name issue goes deeper emotionally than it appears on the surface and it can be hard sorting through the tough issues such as the nature of feminism and equality, the value of having a “team name” and perceptions of nontraditional choices. It gets even more complicated when children are involved and you have to consider things like preserving family connection and factors that influence children’s knowledge about gender and equality.
I don't advocate for any particular solution, just consideration of options and a solution that is right for the individuals involved.
My father comes from the Basque province of Navarra in Spain and the way they handle family names is unique. A child will take the paternal father's paternal name and as well as his maternal mother's maiden name. For example, my father's last name is Maritorena Echevarria (no hyphen). Maritorena is from the father's side and Echevarria is his mother's father's name.
ReplyDeleteMy last names are Maritorena Pare. Once again, Maritorena being my father's last name and Pare being my mother's maiden name. This was traditionally done in the Basque country to denote one's lineage.
When I get married down the road, I will leave it up to my wife to decide what she wants to do since the above practice is not done in North America. If she wants to change her name, keep her maiden name, or follow either North American or Basque tradition should children come along, we'll just have to have to talk about it.
I'm a traditionalist and like the old-fashioned way of doing things.
ReplyDeleteHere in Louisiana the law has always been that property which is the wife's remains the wife's, and property which is the husband's remains the husband's. Even if there is divorce/death/whatever involved. One of the perks of Napoleonic code.
Well, being a traditionalist and a member of the Christian faith, I still see one practical use for the wife taking the husband's surname...family lineage.
ReplyDeleteThe study of bloodlines would be greatly helped if this practice remains as opposed to everything going willy nilly.
I should also point out that the line of thought about it lends itself easily to the contract of marriage. Few seem to think of marriage as the contract it is. Its not a romantic thing. If you want sex or romance, you certainly don't have to have marriage. Its a means to set down in writing what each party brings to the table, what is expected out of them and the guidelines therein.
So, like changing the names, it can be set down into the contract as in the story example. This is the one reason I feel anyone that has a child should HAVE to get married to the father/mother of thier offspring.
In making them get married, you can set down the rules of the offspring's early life. It would also help curb, even a little, the number of kids growing up without two parents or that get dumped into the current welfare state, sad as it is.
The kids end up suffering the brunt of the bad stuff, which is wrong as the kids didn't have anything to do with themselves getting here nor getting dumped into a bad situation.
But that's me...lol.