A Los Angeles man has won the right to use his wife's last name following a lawsuit against the State of California that lasted two and a half years.
After he married, 31-year old Michael Bijon wanted to use his wife's last name, but found that though it was a relatively simple process for a married woman to adopt her husband's last name, with the roles reversed, he would be subject to an entirely different process involving a $350 fee, a court appearance, a public announcement, and a whole pile of paperwork.
After getting stuck in a mountain of red tape, Michael and his wife Diana Bijon called on the California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union for a little help with their problem. Following their successful lawsuit, California changed its laws, making it possible for married couples and domestic partners to put their preferred name on marriage and DMV paperwork, irrespective of sex.
This is certainly a change that's long overdue. To quote the ACLU's SoCal legal director, Mark Rosenbaum, "This disposes of the rule in California that the male surname is the marital name to the same trash bin where dowries were once tossed out."
As a writer, I'd used a pen name for almost a decade before I got married, so changing my name after my husband and I tied the knot just didn't make sense. Being a feminist, it also rankled that it was the woman who was asked to sacrifice part of her identity, unnecessarily, and by default.
I've been married now for the better part of a decade, and find the seemingly old-fashioned attitudes and expectations of people and institutions with regards to my surname choice quite bemusing. Much of my family still insists on calling me Mrs. X on correspondence. They know full well that I never changed my name, in part to make a point. I also use Ms. rather Mrs., since I think that the change in courtesy title according to marital status, which is another women only thing, is also anachronistic. I figure that those who persistently call me Mrs. X are making a point of their own about the traditional values to which I refuse to subscribe.
Personally, I've always liked the double-barreled option, which literally brings both sides together with a new family name. Michael and Diana Bijan could have gone this route without a change in the law, but in their case, Michael felt far closer to his wife's father, which is why he wanted to use her last name only. For me, the double-barreled choice didn’t make sense, since my name was also my trademark (and our names joined with a hyphen sounded a little too convoluted).
The current humorous Hollywood fashion for combining names (as in TomKat and Brangelina) actually seems rather sensible to me. If John Mayer marries Jennifer Aniston, they could go by the name Mayerston or Anistayer. Similarly, if George Clooney ever decides to get hitched to Sarah Larson, they have an option of adopting Larsooney or Cloonson as their new mutual family name. At least it'd make for a plethora of interesting new hybrid names (though probably some unfortunate ones too, what if Helen Hunt marries Cameron Crowe?).
Then again, I like that other Hollywood tradition of getting married and keeping the name people actually know you by. That option certainly made the most sense to me. What do you think?
