Posted on 01/13/2007 4:16:59 PM PST by Caipirabob
LOS ANGELES - Mike Buday isn't married to his last name. In fact, he and his fiancee decided before they wed that he would take hers. But Buday was stunned to learn that he couldn't simply become Mike Bijon when they married in 2005.
As in most other states, that would require some bureaucratic paperwork well beyond what a woman must go through to change her name when marrying.
Instead of completing the expensive, time-consuming process, Buday and his wife, Diana Bijon, enlisted the American Civil Liberties Union and filed a discrimination lawsuit against the state of California. They claim the difficulty faced by a husband seeking to change his name violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I had one.
You can change your name to virtually anything. Can't see why this is a big deal.
I couldn't imagine ever not taking my husband's name. However, it should be no one's damned business if someone chooses to do that or not. It should be as easy for this guy to do it as it was for me.
I guess if your last name was the same as a french rear-end washing apparatus, you would jump at the chance to change it.
You got my vote. This guy wouldnt make a pimple on a mans butt.
Like You I say who cares what he calls himself?
Obvioulsy he come from a family with little self-respect.
On top of that he wants to take a Frog name?? Man thats sick. Well I guess Bijon is as good as Bidet'.
Of course, the lawsuit is cheaper, right?
I'm sure he'll argue that he's trying to protect the right of other men to do likewise, but how many men take their wives' names even in states where it's no more difficult than vice versa?
It is quite normal for states to make it bureaucratically easier to do common things than to do uncommon ones. If I were the lawyer for the state, I would argue that the reason women have the easy checkbox is that so many of them take their husband's name that allowing the checkbox substantially reduces the amount of paperwork the state has to handle even though it means that searching for a list of names a woman has formerly used requires searching through the marriage files as well as the non-marriage name-change files. To allow husbands to take their wives' names without filing a separate name-change form would make it necessary to search both sets of files when doing background checks for men as well as when doing them for women.
LOL. My maiden name was as French as it gets and my dad is where I get my conservatism from (note I didn't say Republicanism). What's your point?
Yet no one seems to notice Buday, which I can only suspect is pronounced Bud-DAY, pretty close to "bidet" is a pretty stupid name. I'd change it if I had it.
Even if it's pronounced "Buddy," ... Equally dumb.
Equal rights for men. No contest.
Just throwing a little dart there Hon. Pardon please.
Are you sure?
That is no man, that is the offsprint a cat and a whip.
Some people just look for any reason to sue and get their name in a newspaper.
This guy should qualify for the "pussy of the year" award.
Another example of the 'feminization of men' or 'new castrati'.
Starbucks has no urinals for the same reason.
Hats off to you sir! You alone have captured and correctly encapsulated the genuine principles involved in this little tempest-in-a-teapot. I like your thinking and your byline.
thanks for sharing that bit of info. :)
it's not like i would have ever found that
out myself since i have never gone in a mens
restroom in starbucks or any other place.
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.