Related:
So Much For Equal Rights
What's the Fuss All About, Anyway?
SurName Change 'Rules'
The SacBee has come out with a
more recent story about the
groom name change kerfuffle.
"No important governmental objectives exist in making this classification between men and women," the suit says. "Rather, the unequal treatment is nothing more than the mechanical application of traditional, inaccurate assumptions about the proper roles of men and women."
--Bijon-Buday Lawsuit
While many potential quotes exist in the SacBee article, I think that the misunderstanding of the issue can be summed-up with this one:
"Kimberly Salter, president of the California chapter of the National Organization for Women, said she doubted that AB 102 would prompt massive numbers of men to take their wife's last name."
Ya think?
It's not supposed to prompt them to change their name, Kimberly. It's supposed to give them the equivalent freedom to do so, if they want to--without being a supreme hassle, and costing an arm and a leg to do it.
To be fair to Kimberly, she
does agree that it is an issue of equality between the genders.
and this one:
"David Faigman, a specialist in constitutional law at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, said he is not familiar with Buday's case but that the lawsuit raises a legitimate constitutional issue if it can be proved that grooms are treated differently than brides.
"I don't know what the obvious reason would be, other than that it's always been done that way -- and that's not a very good explanation," he said."
It's always been done that way, marriage license paperwork is structured only to facilitate traditional assumptions, and everyone is tripping over themselves to lay the blame at somebody else's feet.
Fine.Restructure all marriage license forms.
Adding a second check box is absurdly-trivial; both in terms of cost, and effort to modify the master document.
Permit all persons to effect a surname change under the same conditions which currently apply to women.
Allow persons who have been discriminated against, by this state of affairs, to effect a retroactive change of surname; and have that memorialized upon their Marriage Certificate.
State funds won't be wasted answering a federal lawsuit, and everybody is then happy...except those guys who have been shielded from an honest discussion of surname changes with a prospective spouse: "Nope. Can't do it, because it's too expensive and time-consuming."
Too bad for the guys who would rather hide behind feeble objections, rather than honestly address the question of their willingness (or lack thereof) to take their future spouse's surname.
[Related: There seems to be antipathy from the female side of the lowbrow corral, and I'm seriously at-odds as to how to further classify this late-comer to the commentary fray. (Probably not work- or family-safe, and I was less than inclined to wander around to make certain one way or the other.)]
Now...the question exists--for me, at least--thusly:
Will I be able to get the California DMV to honor both my Marriage Certificate and Social Security name change, in my attempt to change my surname through their departmental procedures?
It would seem that the acknowledgment of my name change, on the part of the federal government, should either force their hand in refusing my request, or cause them to accede to it.
Flip a coin and call it in the air.
If they refuse, I'll simply refuse to renew my State ID; leaving them to grumble about that one amongst themselves, and contact the ACLU to explore a possible Permissive Joinder of Parties, under
FRCP 20(a).
I think I shall sally-forth to yon, semi-local DMV office, and beseech the good graces of the ladies and lords therein in presenting my humble petition for
name change; within the fortnight.
I'll let you know if they demand graft or simply laugh at me.
