Amanda at Pandagon touches the third rail of marital politics: name-changing.
This doesn't seem to be as much of a problem these days as I've seen it in the past. Today, a woman changes her name or not and there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with it. I do remember, however, about 20 years ago when the Name War was huge. I almost didn't get married because of it (the first time). And he used some of the same reasons Amanda lists:
1. It’s better for everyone in the family to have the same last name.
2. What about the kids?
3. Hyphenation is stupid.
The best line used on me was that if we didn't have the same last name, the kids wouldn't know we loved each other. I pointed out that if the name was the only way our kids knew we loved each other, then there were bigger problems than the name.
Amanda's post concerns this lawsuit filed by the ACLU on sex discrimination claims because a man has a harder time changing his last name than a woman does in California.
I don't completely agree with her analysis of the situation. The law is skeptical of men changing their names because it hasn't been the norm, whereas a woman changing her name upon marriage has been typical. If a man wanted to change his name, it was assumed there was more to it. I'll admit this is sexist reasoning and the law should be changed to treat both sexes the same way.
The funniest part about the name-change argument is that I could never get anyone to explain to me why it was so important and exactly where this tradition came from. The fact is that the changing-one's-name tradition comes from a time in legal history when a man and woman married, forming one legal entity, or, as the legendary William Blackstone put it:
By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything;...Upon this principle, of an union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities that either of them acquire by the marriage...A man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her, for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence...
Legally, of course, none of this still exists in a practical sense. It's only when one touches this third rail of marital politics that one sees the sparks fly.
|