...a REAL man would NEVER change his REAL name, Pilgrim!
Posted on 01/08/2007 4:54:07 PM PST by uglybiker
Before Michael Buday married his fiancée, Diana Bijon, he decided to honor her family by bucking tradition and taking her last name. But, it wasn't so easy.
Under California state law, he needed to pay more than $300, go to court, file a petition, and publicly advertise his name change for four weeks in a local newspaper. If he had simply gone along with tradition, it would have cost only $50 to $80.
So Buday, 29, went to court, along with the ACLU, to change the law. They recently announced their plans to sue the California Department of Health Services, which oversees marriage licenses and name changes.
After years of fighting for women's rights, the ACLU is now battling for equal rights for men.
California is one of 44 states with unequal name change laws for people getting married. Right now, only six states — Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and North Dakota — explicitly allow a man to change his name through marriage with the same ease as a woman can.
California is not the only state with a high price tag for a groom's name change. In Illinois, a man wishing to take his wife's surname must fork over $246 for a petition and another $150 to publish the change in a newspaper. Connecticut's price is slightly lower, at only $150 for a court petition.
According to the ACLU, the obstacles facing a husband who wishes to adopt his wife's last name violate the equal protection clause provided by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. "California has the perfect marriage application for the 17th century," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. "The laws reflect a mind-set that the wife is to be subordinate to the husband."
In California, a surname change for the husband is not even an option during the marriage process. Instead, the man must go through a regular name change process, as if he were changing his first name from Bob to Jim.
When contacted, the California Department of Health Services would not comment on the current state of the law.
"At every junction, the message is 'select the name of the husband,'" Rosenbaum said.
Buday was unavailable for comment, but he was quoted in an ACLU press release as saying, "It's not about the money, it's about the principle of families being able to make their own decisions. Diana's dad has become my father figure, and I want to honor that."
Gloria Allred, a top women's rights attorney in Los Angeles, fully supports the ACLU's efforts.
"In California we have made a deliberate effort to try to remove from state laws and regulations any distinctions or burdens made on gender," she said.
As for Buday's personal decision to adopt his wife's last name, Allred adds that "the point is not if he wishes to change his name, but that he has a right to do it."
Buday, she says, is set apart from most men because "he is secure enough" to take his wife's surname.
Of course civil rights lawyers back Buday, but what would an etiquette coach say?
Jodi Smith, head of Mannersmith etiquette consulting, also backs him.
"I do see this as a gender equality issue," she says. "Now that women are considered 'real' and 'legal' people, last names should be a matter of choice."
Will the male name swap soon become a trend? No data exists on how common the practice is. But many couples in recent years have chosen to combine their last names.
For instance, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (born Antonio Villar) and his wife, Corina Raigosa, combined their names when they were married in 1987.
Although Buday must still legally use his "maiden name," the couple reportedly signed their Christmas cards as Mr. and Mrs. Bijon.
Its not mine. I fount it years ago (in 2001) somewhere on the internet and have saved it all these years.
So, steal away.
What's the tax bill when he sits down to take a whiz?
OTOH, who wants to have a name like Buday.
Just marry your sister like I did...
___________________________________________________________
But streetpreacher, Loud Mime can't marry his sister if you already married her. That's polygame. Or bygame. Or something...
Could a male child of your daugher and future SIL have the mother's maiden name be put on the birth certificate for the boy's last name?
Not sure if it's legal but it's worth looking into.
Dudes, you can have every one of my sisters. One is a flaming Clinton loving liberal and the other can't find enough problems with herself.
Dudes, you can have every one of my sisters. One is a flaming Clinton loving liberal and the other can't find enough problems with herself.
________________________________________________________
Sigh. Most sisters are exactly the same. ;-)
I thought that you could change your name to whatever, whenever, as long as you aren't engaged in fraud. When I divorced in Arizona, I didn't ask a judge if it was okay to change my name. I just did. There has been no reprecussions. I wouldn't pay one dime if I was him. Just change the name.
Why? Do you find it unwomanly if the woman doesn't change her name to his in marriage? Actually, I think that the couple should have a name comprised of both of their names. I don't see why I should have to take his. It is definitely wrong that he should have to pay more. Government shouldn't get any money when marriage takes place, except perhaps for the filing fee.
I'm definitely not a progressive, and I don't think this guy is wrong nor a wimp. Have you ever really thought about the entire name change idea? Why should the woman change her name? Is she less of a woman by doing so? Since marriage is a union, perhaps the couple should combine their name.
Is the woman less womanly by taking her husband's name?
"floor plan"?
...a REAL man would NEVER change his REAL name, Pilgrim!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
What do you think a woman thinks when she gets married and is expected to take another man's name?
"Why? Do you find it unwomanly if the woman doesn't change her name to his in marriage?"
Uh, in case you didn't notice, that isn't the issue in this story. You feminists need to get a wife - I mean a life.
Guess what Mr. Nasty, I am NOT a feminist. I was just putting out some food for thought. If you wish to devolve to nastiness, I can do that too, but would rather stay on this thread. Also, I prefer civility.
Now to the subject at hand, of which I am well aware. I was responding to those that thought that the man was a wimp and less than manly. As to your question. No I don't find it unwomanly. However, I don't think that a woman should have to change her name, nor do I think that a man is less than a man for taking hers.
PS I've got a life. A pretty good one, in fact, which includes the GOP, NRA, support the troops rallies, Republican club, etc. Because of my work I was chosen to greet Vice President Cheney last September.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.