This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Atlas Blogged
   Quote of the Day

Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all.

-John Paul Jones

   Recent Comments
   Categories
   Administrivia

The Neolibertarian Network

Syndicate this site (XML)
XHTML | CSS
Blogarama - The Blog Directory
blog search directory Listed on BlogShares

« Gay Adoption | Main | Good Firewalls make Good Neighbors »

January 12, 2007

Gender Equality

My wife took my last name when we married. I didn't ask her to. I didn't expect her to. But she tacked it on at the end as a fourth name with the expectation that it would make things easier. (That is correct, she did not drop her original last name. She just added mine on the end like a caboose, with no hyphens or other decorations.)

And all things considered, it was pretty easy. I've sometimes wondered how easy it would have been for me to take her last name. Not that I wanted to, but I know a few people who have changed their name not through marriage or divorce, and it was more of a hassle than my wife experienced. I was wondering how easy it is for a guy to take his wife's name, or whether the ease of changing names will be enjoyed by gay couples when they eventually have the right to marry.

But I never looked into it until I stumbled across this story about a guy who is suing California on the premise that "the difficulty faced by a husband seeking to change his name violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment".

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.

It suddenly raises my libertarian hackles. I definitely support Mr. Buday in his suit.

I did get a little chuckle over this guy in the article, though. He says

"Diana and I feel strongly about gender equality for both men and women,"

Yes - because gender equality for one or the other, but not both, would be unacceptable.

Wulf Posted by Wulf on January 12, 2007 at 09:42 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/457

Comments

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember This Information?