A California man is suing because it's apparently a legalistic pain the ass for him to take his wife's surname:
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.It seems to me like the logical thing if s/he believes in gender equality would have been for each partner to keep his/her/its own surname. Why not? Here's why not:
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.
. . .
"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."
[Buday's wife Diana] 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 [emphasis added].And those two sentences tell you everything you need to know about this patrophobic nancy boy. The problem isn't the law making it difficult for Buday to change his maiden name - it's that he didn't marry the right guy to begin with!
OK, I'm being overly cynical here. If the guy wants to change his name, it shouldn't be any big deal. But I'll bet he gets tired of explaining himself after a while.
Posted by Chris at January 18, 2007 11:52 AM