Do we need a law requiring women to take their husband's last name?

[Better Believe It]

Participate in this MSN poll at:

http://www.msn.com/

Do we need a law requiring women to take their husband's last name?

The early results at about 7:35 PM Pacific Coast Time:


17 % Yes 10,161 votes

80 % No 46,849 votes

3 % Don't know 1,537 votes

[rucky]

1. I wouldn't wish my last name on anybody

But Mrs. Hitler loves me.

[Better Believe It]

36. Mr. Hitler should change his last name!

And don't change it to Mr. Stalin!

[Bake]

47. Nice post, Hitler!

Really! Nice one.

:hi:

Bake

[MedleyMisty]

2. I didn't take my husband's last name

And I dare anybody to try to make me.

Also, WTF KIND OF POLL IS THIS?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. We certainly do NOT.

What a dumb idea.

It is a very personal choice.

:eyes:

And I did take my husband's name...I wanted to.

[Lint Head]

4. Totally agree.

[Firebrand Gary]

5. I hate this tradition. It essentially implies the woman to submit to the man.

Keep your last name ladies.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

11. Sorry, I disagree.

I loathed my maiden name.

I could not wait to get rid of it. It had been nothing but trouble for me...

That ended when I married!

It IS a very personal choice.

I am not my husband's belonging. I do not submit to him. We care for and love each other...

[pipi_k]

50. Hah...sounds like my daughter-in-law!

When she married my son, she was SO glad to get rid of her maiden name, which consists of lots of consonants in strange combinations, and is difficult to say and spell.

:7

[ChoppinBroccoli]

45. Like Most Things, I Have A Personal Preference, But Don't Want It To Be Law

To me, it's a basic show of respect. You want to be the other half of my life, and share in everything we do and build, but you don't want to be associated with me in any way? That's disrespectful. And from a practical standpoint, if you plan on having children, the children shouldn't be confused by multiple names (plus, it implies to the children that their parents are not united in any meaningful way--ask psychologists what effect that has on children).

When my wife married me, she made her maiden name her middle name, so in that way she was able to hang onto it.

Personally, if a woman had so little respect for me that she even refused to be known by my name, I wouldn't marry her in the first place. But I would never force my personal preference on anyone else by trying to make it a law. I guess that's why I'm here and not some other "freedom-loving, keep-gubmint-out-yer-bizness" right-wing site.

[one_voice]

6. Hell no...

especially since you have to get every marriage license, divorce decree, and your birth certificate to get a damn drivers license.

Seem off balance to anyone else?

It's an unfair burden on women. Imagine if ole' Newtie had to go putting out that kind of money...you bet your ass it would change real quick.

[loyalsister]

24. AND to vote

Those state ID to vote laws are already biased.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

7. I had a clerk refuse to file a declaration of common law marriage in Texas.

He tore up three forms. I asked him "Where does it say in the Texas Family Code i have to change my name?" He had no answer because it's not in the Texas Family Code.

He committed a misdemeanor by refusing to carry out the duties of his office.

I've been divorced twice. I did not change my name either time, but in both cases I woke up one morning and realized I was "Mrs. Asshole"!!!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[provis99]

8. I wouldn't let a wife take my name.

She's got her own identity; she has to keep hers, even if she's named something like "Dingwall".

[seabeyond]

9. i don't get why they would even ask. really odd. nt

[fishwax]

26. apparently it was inspired by this survey, which found half the public would support it

:wtf:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45137510/ns/today-today_health/

"The researchers found that more than two-thirds of Americans in the study said that it's best if a woman takes her husband's name upon marriage. The researchers expected that a majority of Americans would feel this way, Powell said, but they were more surprised to find that 50 percent supported a law requiring women to take their husband's name. "

[woo me with science]

28. I have come to the conclusion that people don't grasp the following concept:

"Just because you think something is a good idea, it does not necessarily follow that it should be a LAW."

Good god.

[fishwax]

30. isn't that the truth

"Just because you think something is a good idea, it does not necessarily follow that it should be a LAW."

Indeed--such a simple concept, too.

And another :wtf: just because my mind remains boggled by the subject of this poll.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

10. Warning. You might get a weird name.

There were two teachers in my high school named:

Mrs. Olive Apple
Mrs. Violet Lavender.


I kid you not. :wtf:

[NMMNG]

12. What century do we live in, again?

:banghead:

[LeftyMom]

13. Did I fall asleep and wake up in the wrong century?

Use whatever name you want.

Some people I know had a novel solution to the name thing: She's a bit old fashioned and wanted to take his name. He comes from a lousy family situation and didn't want her to have a name he associates with abusive family members. They picked out a name that represented a mutual interest and both changed to the new last name. Problem solved. I'd hate to see a one-size-fits-all law for situations as personal as family and identity.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. I used to know a couple that took the wife's last name because the husband

had been abused by his family of origin.

In Japan, the wife usually takes the husband's name unless she is the oldest daughter of a family that has no sons. In such cases, the husband (usually a younger son from another family) takes his wife's last name, especially if there is considerable property or a hereditary position at stake. That way the grandchildren have their maternal grandfather's last name.

[JustAnotherGen]

14. I didn't see the article at the link

What state is this in? And how would this work in a place like New York where two could marry? Do they draw straws? What about two men? Are men exempt? Or could the law include a husband taking his wife's name?

[AnnieBW]

15. WTF?

What is this? Are people THAT thrilled by the pre-feminist fantasy world of "Mad Men" that they want to go back to that nonsense?

I took my husband's last name because it was shorter than my maiden name. I debated a long time about it, but it came down to convenience. I took my maiden name as my new middle name.

[EC]

16. I'm guessing they are wondering

why we needed a law allowing us to keep our own names?

[lynne]

17. No. I didn't take my husbands name and that was over 25 years ago -

- I am my own person. I don't share DNA with the man so I see no reason to have his name. Our children - who do carry his DNA - have his last name.

Silly tradition, IMO.

[happyslug]

21. I had two sister who tried to do that.

One sister retained her born last name, but the other had to adopt her husband's last name. She had the misfortune of marrying someone in the US Navy and the US Navy could NOT handle the fact she had a different last name then his. Thus she found it easier to change her last name then fight the Navy bureaucracy.

This is NOT recent, I always like how US Grant became US Grant. He was born Samuel A, Grant but when he won an appointment to West Point it was a a U.S. Grant. He tried to get it changed to S.A. Grant but found it was easier to change his name then to get the US Army to change its records, thus he is known in History as U.S. Grant (Through his friends called his "Sam" till the day he died).

[happyslug]

18. Women taking their husband's name was very important prior to the Council of Trent (Mid 1500s)

The Council of Trent was the Catholic response to the Protestant Reformation. One of the things the Church decided to "reform" was marriage. Prior to the Council of Trent, Marriage was based on whatever law applied to your village, and that could vary from Ancient Roman Law to Germanic Law even in Italy.

In most of Europe a man and a woman, who were single and above the age of consent (Which was 12 years of age, most men and women did NOT Marry till their 20s, just like today) announced to each other their were man and wife. Most couples did this on the Village's Church Steps in front of their relatives and other town people and then went into church to have the marriage blessed by the Village's Priest.

If that sounds like a Common Law Marriage, you are right. In Catholic Europe such marriages were outlawed by the Council of Trent after the 1550s, Protestant Europe took a little longer, England not doing so till the early 1700s (And then gave an exception for people over seas, thus the "Tradition" that a Captain could marry a couple aboard his ship, in relativity the Captain was NOT marrying the Couple, he was just witnesses them exchange vows as part of a Common Law Marriage).

Now, Common Law Marriages required just an exchange of vows, nothing more. Evidence that such vows were exchanged could include the fact that a Woman took her husband's name and he left her use his last name. That would imply he had exchanged vows with her. In cases where there were witnesses of such an exchange of vows, not a problem, but in cases where no one saw such an exchange (Not unheard of) the use of his last name by the woman was evidence to show they had exchange vows of marriage.

Thus, prior to the Council of Trent, where only marriages made in a church were ruled to be valid (This was changed starting with the French Revolution is the 1790s, replacing a Church Wedding with a License from the State), a woman could have a valid marriage without any license or church record or ceremony. The problem was providing evidence such a marriage took place. If vows were exchanged in front of a Priest (or on ship, a Captain) the Priest (or captain) would make a record of it in the Church's books (and the Captain would write down a comment in his ship's log).

The problem was when the exchange of vows did NOT occur in front of witnesses (and this did happen, this is how King Edward IV married in the mid 1400s, his wife would be the mother of the two princes that were recorded in the history books as being killed by King Richard III on his grab for the Kingship of England). Edward IV's council did not know he had married until he told them of the marriage when the subject of who he should marry came up (Edward's queen would not sleep with him until he had exchanged vows of marriage with her, thus he had exchanged vows).

The courts when confronted with a situation where a man and a woman had lived together for many years, holding themselves out as Husband and wife, held that was sufficient evidence to show that an exchange of vows took place. One way for a woman to "hold" herself as someone's wife was to use his last name as her own. Thus a wife taking her husband's name was most important in common law marriages, it helped shoe that a marriage had taken place. The tradition of a Woman taking her husband's name seem to come out of this tradition and that face the vast majority of marriages before the Council of Trent were what we would call Common Law Marriages.

Just pointing out WHY the rule came that a woman took her husband's name. As a wife, a woman had the right to claim a life estate in 1/3 of her husband's estate (if he had children, 1/2 if he had none). Given that woman tend to outlive their husband's, it was good practice for a Woman to take her Husband's name to show the world (and especially his relatives) that she had a claim to her husband's property on his death.

Please remember, if a woman lived with a man she was NOT married to, she inherited NOTHING upon his death. Worse, any children on the relationship were illegitimate and as such could NOT inherit anything upon either parent's death (This was the law till the mid 1800s when it was changed to permit such illegitimate children to inherit from their mother and more recently to inherit from their father, but we are talking of Common Law Rules NOT the Law of inheritance of today).

Thus is was extremely important that both a Father and Mother show the would that they were married, if they were NOT then their property went to their legitimate blood relatives NOT their children. This was a very harsh rule of the Common Law and why wives made in common practice to take their husband's name AND for the father of the mother's children to agree to her use of his last name. It is all tied in with inheritance laws of the Common Law of England and Europe (Most of which has been changed over the last 200 years, but I am commenting on HOW the practice of Woman taking their Husband's name came about).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. One of my daughters took her husband's name

Her viewpoint was that they planned to have kids and common last names made things easier all the way around. I figured it was her call.

My wife never took the last name of either of her husbands. We both had different last names than her daughters. A mild PITA at times.

[Sabriel]

44. Similar to our situation

We both retained our names, and our children took their last names based on gender. It's never been a problem.

[Nevernose]

20. It doesn't really matter

If they're not allowed to leave the kitchen or speak in public anyway. Sheesh, this country never ceases to amaze me. How the FUCK did 17% of respondents choose the first option? Are these Amish people or religious cultists or something? There is a good story here for MSNBC: that almost twenty percent of Americans are as dumb as a bag of rocks.

[yewberry]

22. Kept my name. No biggie.

Husband kept his name, though he considered taking mine.

Meh.

[Johonny]

23. Then what would be his last name?

Hey you just took my last name!

[fishwax]

25. wow--according to the article, half the public supports making it a legal requirement

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45137510/ns/today-today_health/

:wtf:

[bengalherder]

27. I've been married nearly as many times as Liz Taylor

And I'm keeping the tradition up by retaining my last name as well. Frankly, I like it.

I knew women with last names like 'Sweatt' who were happy to give up the maiden name. So I think it should be left to women's preference- like it has for the last how-many-ever years.

[Tsiyu]

33. I describe myself as Tom Waits described a character in song

"I've been married so many times I've got rice marks on my forehead."



I love my ethnic maiden name, but it was too hard for some Southerners to pronounce, and they often send "ethnic' people correspondence in Spanish (because everyone with a funny name must be from Mexico.) So I was happy to take on a few easier names over the years...

[wickerwoman]

29. Only if it's part of a comprehensive package of legislation that includes bridesmaids' dresses,

dove-handling and distribution of "cupcake cakes".

Seriously MSN? Seriously?

[pennylane100]

31. such a law would be so unconstitutional

why is this even being discussed and what kind of moron would answer yes. This is just too bizarre.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Yes, since when a woman marries a man she stops being an adult capable of running her own life.

Seriously, what a fucked up poll.

[NightWatcher]

38. they also need to get their butt in the kitchen and make me a chicken pot pie

geez, first the vote, now this?


j/k, my wife kept her name too

[RainDog]

34. omg. 17% of americans are total fucking idiots?!?!?

why on earth should this matter to anyone but the people involved?

oh yeah, it's to make sure women recognize the religious right sees them as 2nd class citizens.

[Glassunion]

37. Or

They are stuck with Cricketshitz as a maiden name.

[FLAprogressive]

35. What prompted that? It is and should continue to be a personal choice.

[ehrnst]

39. Most married couples I know introduce each other by their first and last names.

My son took my middle name and my husband's last name, and he knows that.

[TK421]

40. What brought this on?

:shrug:

[NeedleCast]

41. How Is This Even A Question?!?

of course we don't need a law requiring women to take their husband's last name! Yours truly is getting married next May and my fiance is keeping her last name. I'm totally fine with that. It's been her last name for 36 years and she's proud of her Polish heritage. I've never understood the archaic practice anyway.

[pink-o]

42. Like everything else in a woman's life, this should be an individual choice...

with no govt interferance. But of course, the reactionaries and those scared of Gyno-power would love to see us subjugated in any way possible.

I have no problem with Mary Jones marrying John Smith and becoming Mary Smith. What I find nauseating and identity-sucking is when Mary Jones becomes Mrs. John Smith. Last name, just fine. First name, really, really creepy and submissive.

[Glassunion]

43. My wife took my last name after we were married... Now she is thinking about going back...

She likes my last name, however there is someone else in the same state as us who has the exact same name as her.

Apparently this other lady liked to run up some credit card debt and not pay her bills. It's my wife however that is continually getting all of the court notices. So far we have lost $345 for the crime of being completely innocent.

Who would have thunk that there would be two Barbarella Snotpockets?

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Could be worse.

http://mm.iit.uni-miskolc.hu/Lart/monty/mrmrsgit.html

[Tracer]

49. My married name is only 2 letters different from my maiden name.

I kept it after my divorce just to avoid the confusion of different names for me and my kids.