A. I change my last name monthly. So I don't get attached anymore.
B. N/A
C. Sure, the more alias's the happier!
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Name Game
The Name GameFollow
Redyne wrote:
A. I change my last name monthly. So I don't get attached anymore.
B. N/A
C. Sure, the more alias's the happier!
B. N/A
C. Sure, the more alias's the happier!
??? How do you manage that?
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
LOL...wouldn't you want one of my brother's!
Lol. The woman at the DMV told them that men don't do that, so they're suing? Sheesh!
It's a bogus claim. Maybe someone told them something that was incorrect and they believed them, but in California the process for the man taking the woman's name is identical to the reverse. A friend of mine (who happens to work one office down from me and whom I just talked to about this) has changed his name a couple times in his life. First was back in the day when he decided he didn't have a connection to his father (or wasn't sure if he was his father), so he simply removed his last name. He said that was relatively easy, but since that time some of the laws have changed.
He said that taking his wifes last name when they got married was "the easiest thing in the world". He just showed the marriage certificate with the new name on it and that was sufficient for all the things he had to change. That included social security (which is easy to change anyway), DMV, and passport. The fact that his wife was Canadian (still is) was far more of a hinderance then him changing his name.
If they didn't put the name change on the marriage certificate, then that may be why he's having problems. But then that's not an equal protection issue. If you don't make the change to the woman's name on the marriage certificate, you'll have to go through the longer process as well. That's "equal" under the law...
Don't really have a strong position on name changing. I figure whatever someone wants to do with that regard is fine by me. For me, it would depend on the names involved. I don't think I'd change my last name (don't feel any particular desire to), but would not be blanketly opposed to it either.
It's a bogus claim. Maybe someone told them something that was incorrect and they believed them, but in California the process for the man taking the woman's name is identical to the reverse. A friend of mine (who happens to work one office down from me and whom I just talked to about this) has changed his name a couple times in his life. First was back in the day when he decided he didn't have a connection to his father (or wasn't sure if he was his father), so he simply removed his last name. He said that was relatively easy, but since that time some of the laws have changed.
He said that taking his wifes last name when they got married was "the easiest thing in the world". He just showed the marriage certificate with the new name on it and that was sufficient for all the things he had to change. That included social security (which is easy to change anyway), DMV, and passport. The fact that his wife was Canadian (still is) was far more of a hinderance then him changing his name.
If they didn't put the name change on the marriage certificate, then that may be why he's having problems. But then that's not an equal protection issue. If you don't make the change to the woman's name on the marriage certificate, you'll have to go through the longer process as well. That's "equal" under the law...
Don't really have a strong position on name changing. I figure whatever someone wants to do with that regard is fine by me. For me, it would depend on the names involved. I don't think I'd change my last name (don't feel any particular desire to), but would not be blanketly opposed to it either.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
You may be right, there. Not that the lawsuit itself was my focus, but according to this FAQ on California name change laws...So it sounds as if John Smith and Peggy Jones can easily become John and Peggy Smith or John and Peggy Jones, but they'd need a court order if they both wanted to become John and Peggy Smith-Jones (or John and Peggy Smitones).
NOLO Resource Center wrote:
I'm a woman who is planning to be married soon. Do I have to take my husband's name?
No. When you marry, you are free to keep your own name or take your husband's name, without a court-ordered name change. Your husband can adopt your name, too, if that's what you both prefer. However, you'll need a court order if you and your husband both want to change to a different name that you share.
No. When you marry, you are free to keep your own name or take your husband's name, without a court-ordered name change. Your husband can adopt your name, too, if that's what you both prefer. However, you'll need a court order if you and your husband both want to change to a different name that you share.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Right. And from the conversation I had with my friend about this, the "court order" part basically means you have to go in front of a judge and get him to stamp your request. That's a relatively recent change, but it's not exactly hugely difficult and *only* applies if you're doing a "Gee I just feel like changing my name" thing (which he did many years ago himself).
If they filled out the wedding certificate information with the correct desired name change, the process is automatic. That certificate becomes an officially binding document as soon as it's signed of by the Justice of the Peace (or whatever official officializes such things in your area). At that point, the woman at the DMV can say whatever she feels like saying, but if you present that as an identification document, it's valid for the purpose of obtaining a valid state ID or license with that name on it instead of your old one. Same deal for passports and credit cards and whatever else you feel like.
I have no clue what this couple is complaining about or why they think they need to sue over this. In California there is absolutely no difficulty with a man taking a woman's name. If they're having problems, I suspect it's on their end, and not the state's.
If they filled out the wedding certificate information with the correct desired name change, the process is automatic. That certificate becomes an officially binding document as soon as it's signed of by the Justice of the Peace (or whatever official officializes such things in your area). At that point, the woman at the DMV can say whatever she feels like saying, but if you present that as an identification document, it's valid for the purpose of obtaining a valid state ID or license with that name on it instead of your old one. Same deal for passports and credit cards and whatever else you feel like.
I have no clue what this couple is complaining about or why they think they need to sue over this. In California there is absolutely no difficulty with a man taking a woman's name. If they're having problems, I suspect it's on their end, and not the state's.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
So it sounds as if John Smith and Peggy Jones can easily become John and Peggy Smith or John and Peggy Jones, but they'd need a court order if they both wanted to become John and Peggy Smith-Jones (or John and Peggy Smitones).
If they really were from California, they'd call themselves Johggy.
Or Pegohn.
Last names are so XXth Century...
Seems to me you missed the mark Gbaji.
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.
"Diana and I feel strongly about gender equality for both men and women," Buday said. "I think the most important thing in all of this is to bring it to a new level of awareness."
Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU in Southern California, said it is the first federal lawsuit of its kind in the country. "It's the perfect marriage application for the 17th century," Rosenbaum said. "It belongs in the same trash can as dowries."
Only six states — Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and North Dakota — have statutes establishing equal name-change processes for men and women when they marry. In California and other states, men cannot choose a different last name while filing a marriage license.
In California, a man who wants to take his wife's name must file a petition, pay more than $300, place a public notice for weeks in a local newspaper and then appear before a judge.
Because of Buday's case, a California state lawmaker has introduced a bill to put a space on the marriage license for either spouse to change names.
The Census Bureau does not keep figures on how many U.S. men are taking their brides' names. But clearly it happening more and more. Milwaukee County, Wis., Clerk Mark Ryan estimated that one in every 100 grooms there now takes the name of his wife.
Bijon, 28, approached Buday about the idea when they were dating. She had no brothers but wanted to prolong the family name. Buday, a 29-year-old developer of interactive advertising, was estranged from his own father and was not attached to his own last name.
"I knew immediately it was pretty important to her or else she wouldn't have brought it up," Buday said.
At one point, the couple tried the Department of Motor Vehicles to get a name change. But Buday said he was told by a woman behind the counter: "Men just don't do that type of thing."
Couples who want to hyphenate or combine their names also must endure the lengthy court procedures in California. One of the more notable examples was Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who went to court to fuse his last name, Villar, with his wife's, Raigosa, when they married in 1987.
Laws giving women an easy choice of names were largely a byproduct of the feminist movement. A 2004 Harvard University study found that the number of college-educated women who kept their surnames upon marriage rose from about 3 percent in 1975 to nearly 20 percent in 2001.
Not as easy at it seems.
The full article wrote:
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.
"Diana and I feel strongly about gender equality for both men and women," Buday said. "I think the most important thing in all of this is to bring it to a new level of awareness."
Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU in Southern California, said it is the first federal lawsuit of its kind in the country. "It's the perfect marriage application for the 17th century," Rosenbaum said. "It belongs in the same trash can as dowries."
Only six states — Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and North Dakota — have statutes establishing equal name-change processes for men and women when they marry. In California and other states, men cannot choose a different last name while filing a marriage license.
In California, a man who wants to take his wife's name must file a petition, pay more than $300, place a public notice for weeks in a local newspaper and then appear before a judge.
Because of Buday's case, a California state lawmaker has introduced a bill to put a space on the marriage license for either spouse to change names.
The Census Bureau does not keep figures on how many U.S. men are taking their brides' names. But clearly it happening more and more. Milwaukee County, Wis., Clerk Mark Ryan estimated that one in every 100 grooms there now takes the name of his wife.
Bijon, 28, approached Buday about the idea when they were dating. She had no brothers but wanted to prolong the family name. Buday, a 29-year-old developer of interactive advertising, was estranged from his own father and was not attached to his own last name.
"I knew immediately it was pretty important to her or else she wouldn't have brought it up," Buday said.
At one point, the couple tried the Department of Motor Vehicles to get a name change. But Buday said he was told by a woman behind the counter: "Men just don't do that type of thing."
Couples who want to hyphenate or combine their names also must endure the lengthy court procedures in California. One of the more notable examples was Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who went to court to fuse his last name, Villar, with his wife's, Raigosa, when they married in 1987.
Laws giving women an easy choice of names were largely a byproduct of the feminist movement. A 2004 Harvard University study found that the number of college-educated women who kept their surnames upon marriage rose from about 3 percent in 1975 to nearly 20 percent in 2001.
Not as easy at it seems.
Kaelesh wrote:
Seems to me you missed the mark Gbaji.
The full article wrote:
Only six states — Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and North Dakota — have statutes establishing equal name-change processes for men and women when they marry. In California and other states, men cannot choose a different last name while filing a marriage license.
In California, a man who wants to take his wife's name must file a petition, pay more than $300, place a public notice for weeks in a local newspaper and then appear before a judge.
In California, a man who wants to take his wife's name must file a petition, pay more than $300, place a public notice for weeks in a local newspaper and then appear before a judge.
The article is wrong. I can't say it more plainly then that.
I talked to a friend of mine yesterday, right before posting. He was married less then two years ago here in California. He took his wife's last name. He did *not* have to go before a judge. He did *not* have to pay any additional money. He did mention that if you do it at any other time those are the steps you have to go through, but all he had to do was enter the new last name on the marriage certificate.
I don't know what the article is talking about with "statutes" establishing equal name changing processes, but I don't think that it means what they think it does. It may be that there's no specific law requiring that they be equal, but I can tell you that the process *is* equal. Enter your new name on the marriage certificate and file it. Done. I suppose it's possible that a different municipality might have different rules, but then that's an issue to take with the municipality. The state should not have to write a law saying you have rights that you already have. That's just silly...
It's at most a local issue. Not a state issue.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 330
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (330)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Name Game
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC