Poll
Question:
Wife takes husband's last name. Yea or nea.
Option 1: Yep
votes: 17
Option 2: Nope
votes: 19
Option 3: Nobody will marry me
votes: 8
My own situation was a strange one, since I've been using my step-dad's last name since I was twelve. Because my mom wanted me to.
So I decided to let Mrs. MIM pick what last name we took together. She picked my stepdad's name and oh boy was my dad's family pissed about it. Oh well.
Several of my brothers have been having kids and naming them the name we picked, effectively shutting down the family name of my dad. I feel kinda bad about that, but hey he shouldn't have left my mom. :P
You gotta live with your consequences.
But my question is really this---If I had not had a dysfunctional jackass family, would it have been important to me for my wife to take my name? I think it would, and it's a result of a conversation about political candidates. It turns out I reflexively vote against any person with a hyphenated last name. You can't have the same name as your kids? Really? My own cousin-in-law goes by her maiden name rather than taking my awesome cousin's last name, even though she owes every bit of success she's ever had to him and his connections.
Remember that dude Blagojevich? Yeah, my cousin quit as his budget chief a while before he went to jail. I'm also related to Jesse James and Devil Anse Hatfield. Anyway...
If Mrs. MIM had decided she wanted to keep her name I would have had a huge problem with that. I might have decided to take her name too, but I think I would have been more comfortable with her taking one of the ones I had to offer. Which is what happened.
I made the poll male-centric because this is Languish. We don't have girls.
I don't really care, to tell the truth. I'd only be concerned why my hypothetical wife wouldn't want to take my name. If she likes hers or has recognition/connections because of it, cool. If she didn't want to to take it because of the patriarchy or something I admit I'd be put off
I let my wife keep her maiden name until after she got her citizenship. Did not want to confuse the geniuses at NIS/ICE.
I'm going straight up old fashioned reactionary here. She must keep her name. If she insists on changing she can use <father-in-laws-name>sdóttir.
How much more convenient is it for the family if both parents share last names?
Quote from: derspiess on February 16, 2014, 12:57:31 AM
I let my wife keep her maiden name until after she got her citizenship. Did not want to confuse the geniuses at NIS/ICE.
:worthy:
Hey married a Latin woman, you know he's whipped. On here it's all for show :P
Quote from: Phillip V on February 16, 2014, 01:11:26 AM
How much more convenient is it for the family if both parents share last names?
For the kids it's a big deal. Maybe not as much now but that was my experience in the 80s and 90s.
I think a family pooling it all says we're in this together now.
Edit: Mom saying "yeah but my name is Evans" kinda tells you she's only got one foot in the hole.
3 slightly modified to include the word "decent".
But generally yes. Or more importantly at the least any kids I have should. I'm the oldest of the male line in my generation, no matrilineal marriage for me!
Since I'm going to marry a foreigner the kid's first name should be foreign.
Quote from: Phillip V on February 16, 2014, 01:11:26 AM
How much more convenient is it for the family if both parents share last names?
Coming from a culture which uses patronymic names using family names is considered gauche, pretentious and anti-patriotic, using matronyms is considered either a sign of disfunction either in the mother or the family (e.g. she doesn't know who the father is or father molested kids).
It's all about cultural context. While my family was living in the states we used mine and my brother's last names (as opposed to my father's or mother's) on the grounds that it was used by half the family. That was just to fit into american social norms of kind "this is the Vikingsson family"
Quote from: Tyr on February 16, 2014, 01:23:28 AM
Since I'm going to marry a foreigner the kid's first name should be foreign.
Okay THAT'S a good point!
What are the benefits?
Quote from: Viking on February 16, 2014, 01:27:22 AM
It's all about cultural context. While my family was living in the states we used mine and my brother's last names (as opposed to my father's or mother's) on the grounds that it was used by half the family.
Plz explain.
Quote from: Tyr on February 16, 2014, 01:23:28 AM
3 slightly modified to include the word "decent".
But generally yes. Or more importantly at the least any kids I have should. I'm the oldest of the male line in my generation, no matrilineal marriage for me!
Since I'm going to marry a foreigner the kid's first name should be foreign.
Pedro Wang?
M'Bala Smirnov?
Adbullah Singh?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 16, 2014, 01:29:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on February 16, 2014, 01:27:22 AM
It's all about cultural context. While my family was living in the states we used mine and my brother's last names (as opposed to my father's or mother's) on the grounds that it was used by half the family.
Plz explain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name
QuoteIn Iceland, listings such as the telephone directory are alphabetised by first name rather than surname. To reduce ambiguity, the telephone directory goes further by also listing professions. In Russia, where name-patronyms of similar style were historically used (such as Ivan Petrovich), the much larger population necessitated the introduction of surnames, and delegated the patronymic to record-keeping middle-name and conversational honorific.
Icelanders formally address others by their first names. By way of example, the former prime minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir would not be introduced as 'Ms Sigurðardóttir' but either by her first name or her full name, and usually addressed by her first name only.
In the case of two people in the same group having the same given name, perhaps one named Jón Stefánsson and the other Jón Þorláksson, one could address Jón Stefánsson as "Jón Stefáns" and Jón Þorláksson as "Jón Þorláks". When someone holds a conversation with these two people at the same time, the appendage "son" would not need to be used; in that case, the father's name could be used like a nickname, although it is just as common in such cases to refer to people by their middle names (having a middle name being nowadays the general rule for people with a common name like 'Jón').
While the name of Icelandic singer and actress Björk is generally perceived as her stage name, it is actually simply her first name (her full name is Björk Guðmundsdóttir). Björk is how any Icelander would address her, whether formally or casually.
As a result of the vast majority of people using patronymics, a family will normally have a variety of last names: the children of (married or unmarried) parents Jón Einarsson and Bryndís Atladóttir could be named Ólafur Jónsson and Katrín Jónsdóttir. With matronymics, the children in this example would be Ólafur Bryndísarson and Katrín Bryndísardóttir. Patronymics thus have the formula (genitive case of father's name, usually adding -s) + son/dóttir, whereas matronymics are (genitive case of mother's name, often -ar) + son/dóttir.
The Icelandic naming system occasionally causes problems for families travelling abroad, especially with young children, since non-Icelandic customs staff (apart from those of other Nordic countries) are usually unfamiliar with the practice and therefore expect children to have the surnames of their parents.
However, people of Icelandic descent who live in foreign countries, such as the significant Icelandic community in the Canadian province of Manitoba, usually abandon the traditional Icelandic naming system. In most cases they adapt to the naming conventions of their country of residence—most commonly by retaining the patronymic of their first ancestor to immigrate to the new country as a permanent family surname, much as other Scandinavian immigrants did before surnames became fully established in their own countries.[6]
Being born in england my birth certificate was filled in by the local hospital staff, so the name on my birth certificate is literally "Viking, daughter of Maternal Grandfather"
Because in my family we have two sons and no daughters "son of father" is the most common last name, so we used it as the common last name in situations where families are addressed with a common name.
Quote
Pedro Wang?
M'Bala Smirnov?
Adbullah Singh?
:yes:
(s)he will be: a child of the future.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 16, 2014, 01:27:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 16, 2014, 01:23:28 AM
Since I'm going to marry a foreigner the kid's first name should be foreign.
Okay THAT'S a good point!
What are the benefits?
Gives them aspects of both cultures, lets them still fit in overseas (in some countries foreign names are rare. Mainly looking at Japan here) whilst still being fine in the UK (where you can be called anything and nobody bats an eyelid).
Plus its cool.
Names that work equally well in both cultures are also a good way to go though are often limited and a bit overdone.
In HK, wives don't use their husbands' names. Some people add their husbands' names to theirs. They never lose their original last names.
Say, if the wife has [last name][first name] before marriage, after the marriage her name becomes [her husband's last name][her original last name][her original first name]. This is becoming less common over time.
I don't really care. Now that you mention it, I recall that the wife brought up the subject a few times just before we got married. That is probably her way of asking my opinion.
Vikes---Do you use the app that makes sure you don't mate with your cousin?
Your last name is part of your identity. Having to change it to another person's last name seems very silly. That said, I might have different expectations if my mother didn't keep her maiden name.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 16, 2014, 01:47:12 AM
Vikes---Do you use the app that makes sure you don't mate with your cousin?
I don't live on Iceland anymore, but, yes.
How often do you use it?
How often did you use it when you were in Iceland?
It's not important to me if she takes my name or not.
The husband taking the wife's name, while still uncommon, is certainly on the rise. I have a hard time seeing myself change my name though. However, it does depend a lot on her name. If she's a Heydrich... :wub:
Quote from: Tyr on February 16, 2014, 01:36:11 AM
Quote
Pedro Wang?
M'Bala Smirnov?
Adbullah Singh?
:yes:
(s)he will be: a child of the future.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 16, 2014, 01:27:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 16, 2014, 01:23:28 AM
Since I'm going to marry a foreigner the kid's first name should be foreign.
Okay THAT'S a good point!
What are the benefits?
Gives them aspects of both cultures, lets them still fit in overseas (in some countries foreign names are rare. Mainly looking at Japan here) whilst still being fine in the UK (where you can be called anything and nobody bats an eyelid).
Plus its cool.
Names that work equally well in both cultures are also a good way to go though are often limited and a bit overdone.
My parents chose a Jewish name for me (we aren't Jewish) because it's present in most western cultures, written and pronounced almost the same in all of them.
In Spain a wife doesn't take her husband's family name, sons in turn get both surnames although we mostly only use the father's. Only the patronymic (father family name) is passed down, though.
I would not expect a spouse to take my name. I think it costs extra money? I could be wrong. I'm mildly opposed to the convention, but basically I don't care, and if she wanted to I wouldn't stop her (unless it cost extra money).
For children, I would either have sons take my name and daughters hers; alternatively, we would flip a coin.
Quote from: celedhring on February 16, 2014, 04:55:07 AMIn Spain a wife doesn't take her husband's family name, sons in turn get both surnames although we mostly only use the father's. Only the patronymic (father family name) is passed down, though.
Nowadays the mother's surname can go first if both parents agree. Since my surname is ultra common I personally wouldn't mind it in my case.
My wife took my surname but I wouldn't have minded if she had chosen not to. I don't get why anyone would care about that. :hmm:
No hyphens. No feminist bullshit. NO MERCY.
Oh, if my wife had hyphenated our surnames, it would have been completely ridiculous given how long both of them were. :lol:
On a related note: we have friends up in Boston who, when they got married, the dude took the wife's name. :wacko:
My wife started using my last name while we were engaged, but oddly enough, only legally changed it last year.
And there you have it.
There is far too much bullshit that goes with having the surname McDonald. S wants to go for it because she hates her own surname (people "correct" the spelling all the time and get it wrong), but I don't think she understands the complex I've got after almost 30 years of everybody responding to finding out my last name with a joke. "Do you believe in magic?" "Have you had your break today?" "No relation to Ronald?" "Ba-da-ba-ba-ba?" I've heard them all multiple times.
I came pretty damn close to changing my name around 2009 when my dad, after splitting from my mom, decided to let me know (last, literally after everyone else) that he was marrying my childhood babysitter. I got talked out of it, but between that and his father getting his former marriage annulled to convert to Catholicism finally triggering my uncle changing his surname to his mother's, I'm a reluctant McDonald, at best.
Your new nickname is Mac Tonight. :cool:
Quote from: The Larch on February 16, 2014, 07:38:47 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 16, 2014, 04:55:07 AMIn Spain a wife doesn't take her husband's family name, sons in turn get both surnames although we mostly only use the father's. Only the patronymic (father family name) is passed down, though.
Nowadays the mother's surname can go first if both parents agree. Since my surname is ultra common I personally wouldn't mind it in my case.
And the son can switch the order once he's over 18, so nobody's stopping you (I'd say both your surnames are bang average though :P)
There was no question of my wife not taking my name.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 16, 2014, 09:15:34 AM
There is far too much bullshit that goes with having the surname McDonald. S wants to go for it because she hates her own surname (people "correct" the spelling all the time and get it wrong), but I don't think she understands the complex I've got after almost 30 years of everybody responding to finding out my last name with a joke. "Do you believe in magic?" "Have you had your break today?" "No relation to Ronald?" "Ba-da-ba-ba-ba?" I've heard them all multiple times.
No, "Do you have a farm? EIEIO"? :)
Quote from: The Larch on February 16, 2014, 07:38:47 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 16, 2014, 04:55:07 AMIn Spain a wife doesn't take her husband's family name, sons in turn get both surnames although we mostly only use the father's. Only the patronymic (father family name) is passed down, though.
Nowadays the mother's surname can go first if both parents agree. Since my surname is ultra common I personally wouldn't mind it in my case.
My surname is extremely rare. So rare that I think my extended family is the only one using it. Don't know what the tradition is in Turkey but my Turkish sis-in-law adopted our name when she married my brother.
Quote from: dps on February 16, 2014, 09:26:44 AM
No, "Do you have a farm? EIEIO"? :)
From kindergarten until about 6th grade, nonstop.
Think that one would bother me more than the Ronald McDonald stuff. Unless I actually had a farm. Though that might even make it worse.
I did not allow her to change her name. She has a not so common last name, I have a very common one. She also has the most common first name in the world.
Quote from: lustindarkness on February 16, 2014, 09:38:05 AM
I did not allow her to change her name. She has a not so common last name, I have a very common one. She also has the most common first name in the world.
That's the tack I've been trying to take with S, but she's having none of it. She's literally the only person with her combination of given and surname in the US, and she wants to freelance, which makes that one hell of a marketing asset to let go of because of issues with people misspelling her name.
Nobody suffered more than my classmate at highschool Carles Viana. What were their parents thinking?
:lol:
My last name is deeply mangled Ukrainian, to the point it's virtually unique to my extended family. Hell at one point I owned [mylastname].com (I let it expire, but I really should see if it's still available).
It certainly wasn't a deal breaker, but I preferred that our family all have the last name - it's part of being a family after all. And since no one would think twice about my wife taking my last name, and everyone would scratch their heads (in particular in conservative rural Alberta) if I took her name, I thought the choice was obvious.
Anyways, for several years my wife continued to use her maiden name professionally when she worked at the jail, but since moving back to Alberta she's gone with just my last name.
Kids getting the last name of me or the mother...I could handle either one. But if my wife wanted to give the kids the last name of some other dude, we would have to talk.
Quote from: dps on February 16, 2014, 09:26:44 AM
No, "Do you have a farm? EIEIO"? :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zebvFBNZ3Mg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zebvFBNZ3Mg)
My wife took my last name, we never really talked about it actually. She just idly mentioned one day a few days prior to the wedding that she'd need to do some research on what steps she'd have to take to get her named changed on all her stuff.
I wouldn't have cared at all if she hadn't taken my name, something that is a total non issue to me.
I'm amused that these days anyone cares enough to stress over it. Who cares? If you want to take her name, take it. If she wants to take yours, then she takes it. If neither of you care for your names, come up with something different.
My kids have grown up in a family with multiple last names being used: their father's, my maiden, Max's original last name, our newly-minted married name. None of us worry too much about it. It's never been a problem because none of us make it a problem. The kids' friends call me Mrs. Ex-husband all the time, and I just smile and say hello. A huge chunk of my friends still refer to me by my maiden name, and a bunch more refer to me by my new last name. Hell, my own mother called me by Max's original last name for years after we were married, even though it was never my name.
Despite what's been said it, it really isn't a big deal for kids to have a different last name from their parents anymore. Divorce and re-marriage is too common for anyone to even blink at it. As for "part of being a family" is all having the same name... sorry, but that's just ridiculous to me. A name isn't even in the top 10 for me on what "being a family" is all about. Or are you saying that when a daughter takes her husband's name she's abdicating from the family? Or if a son does so?
There are those who are so entrenched in tradition that it's a matter of masculine pride that "his woman" takes his name. If she's okay with that, then good for them. If not, why does it matter, ultimately? There's nothing wrong with tradition, but when it becomes more important than who the person is you're taking as your spouse... that's kind of messed up.
I don't know that many people care. I do think a man who changes his last name in any way is essentially a bitch, though.
Not all last names are created equal, if I was a woman I'd probably base my decision on whether or not I had a good last name versus my husband.
Quote from: merithyn on February 16, 2014, 10:39:52 AM
I'm amused that these days anyone cares enough to stress over it. Who cares? If you want to take her name, take it. If she wants to take yours, then she takes it. If neither of you care for your names, come up with something different.
My kids have grown up in a family with multiple last names being used: their father's, my maiden, Max's original last name, our newly-minted married name. None of us worry too much about it. It's never been a problem because none of us make it a problem. The kids' friends call me Mrs. Ex-husband all the time, and I just smile and say hello. A huge chunk of my friends still refer to me by my maiden name, and a bunch more refer to me by my new last name. Hell, my own mother called me by Max's original last name for years after we were married, even though it was never my name.
Despite what's been said it, it really isn't a big deal for kids to have a different last name from their parents anymore. Divorce and re-marriage is too common for anyone to even blink at it. As for "part of being a family" is all having the same name... sorry, but that's just ridiculous to me. A name isn't even in the top 10 for me on what "being a family" is all about. Or are you saying that when a daughter takes her husband's name she's abdicating from the family? Or if a son does so?
There are those who are so entrenched in tradition that it's a matter of masculine pride that "his woman" takes his name. If she's okay with that, then good for them. If not, why does it matter, ultimately? There's nothing wrong with tradition, but when it becomes more important than who the person is you're taking as your spouse... that's kind of messed up.
When I was a kid, I asked my grandfather if he was scared fighting in WWII. He told me he was, until my father was born, because he then knew there was someone to carry on his name (first, middle, and last). I pointed out that my father gave his sons different names so his name was doomed, and my grandfather was like "yeah" and looked unhappy. My father and grandfather had a somewhat difficult relationship, and I think this was a thing between them.
I was close to my grandfather, and my father and I have had some arguments through the years. I've always had in the back of my mind that if my wife will go along I'd like to name a son after my grandfather. It would be a late game comeback for his name and I'm sure would irk my father to see his name erasing plan foiled.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 16, 2014, 10:58:10 AM
When I was a kid, I asked my grandfather if he was scared fighting in WWII. He told me he was, until my father was born, because he then knew there was someone to carry on his name (first, middle, and last). I pointed out that my father gave his sons different names so his name was doomed, and my grandfather was like "yeah" and looked unhappy. My father and grandfather had a somewhat difficult relationship, and I think this was a thing between them.
I was close to my grandfather, and my father and I have had some arguments through the years. I've always had in the back of my mind that if my wife will go along I'd like to name a son after my grandfather. It would be a late game comeback for his name and I'm sure would irk my father to see his name erasing plan foiled.
My sons' middle names all came from someone in the family. In my youngest son's case, he was named after his father (first name) and my father and brother (middle name). It's tradition - strongly held - in both my family and my ex-husband's to name the sons after the fathers/uncles/grandfathers. Or rather, it was.
Neither my brother nor I followed the strictest of conventions on this. My brother is a junior, named after my father who was named after his grandfather. My nephew's first name is completely unrelated, though he carries my brother's name as a middle name. My son has the same first name as my ex, but a very different middle name. His name is Jerome, but he's called Jeremy where his father (and uncle and great-uncle) all went by Jerry.
Traditions change with time. There's nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: celedhring on February 16, 2014, 09:24:24 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 16, 2014, 07:38:47 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 16, 2014, 04:55:07 AMIn Spain a wife doesn't take her husband's family name, sons in turn get both surnames although we mostly only use the father's. Only the patronymic (father family name) is passed down, though.
Nowadays the mother's surname can go first if both parents agree. Since my surname is ultra common I personally wouldn't mind it in my case.
And the son can switch the order once he's over 18, so nobody's stopping you (I'd say both your surnames are bang average though :P)
Yeah, there's little point in switching one -ez for another -ez. :p
Now, if I could take both my dad's and my mom's second surnames, now that'd be cool...
Didn't really crop up for me and my wife as she had a very common last name that she was glad to lose.
Quote from: merithyn on February 16, 2014, 10:39:52 AM
I'm amused that these days anyone cares enough to stress over it. Who cares? If you want to take her name, take it. If she wants to take yours, then she takes it. If neither of you care for your names, come up with something different.
That's a bit flippant. Great that it wasn't an issue for you but I don't think that negates that people can legitimately feel otherwise.
QuoteNobody will marry me
:lol:
My wife and I will share a compound name made from out surnames, or if that's unattractive, choose one from a novel we both admire.
A cautionary tale, men who have a different surname to their children will have trouble taking them through passport control in less evolved countries.
"What is your relationship to these children sir?" *pings rubber glove*
Where's the option for "Marriage? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
What's a "Carles Viana" and why is it funny?
Besides the last name being obviously non-negotiable, any prospective wife has to accept a predetermined name for the firstborn son.
Quote from: Lettow77 on February 16, 2014, 07:40:17 PM
any prospective wife has to accept a predetermined name for the firstborn son.
I'm not sure "Stonewall J.E.B. Bedford Forrest Wilkes Boothe E. Lee" is going to fit on the birth certificate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 16, 2014, 07:42:35 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on February 16, 2014, 07:40:17 PM
any prospective wife has to accept a predetermined name for the firstborn son.
I'm not sure "Stonewall J.E.B. Bedford Forrest Wilkes Boothe E. Lee" is going to fit on the birth certificate.
He's in Japan. I'm sure Lettow wouldn't be so foolish as to give his son a name that would forever mark his child as an outsider to be cruelly excluded. The half-white thing will be hard enough.
I think he might be foolish enough. But this is, of course, a truckload of sour grapes.
Togo Stonewall Tojo JEB Mew.
Pierre Gustave Toutant Yamamoto
Earl van Dorn Yamashita Squee
Sockitumi Preeze.
Well, I thought it was funny. :glare:
Which makes it all sadder.
:mad:
Middle names? WTF is this commie shit?
Quote from: Scipio on February 16, 2014, 08:59:51 PM
Middle names? WTF is this commie shit?
I have two middle names due to the fact that my parents couldn't agree.
[insert image of hot dog stand]
Quote from: garbon on February 16, 2014, 12:24:37 PM
Quote from: merithyn on February 16, 2014, 10:39:52 AM
I'm amused that these days anyone cares enough to stress over it. Who cares? If you want to take her name, take it. If she wants to take yours, then she takes it. If neither of you care for your names, come up with something different.
That's a bit flippant. Great that it wasn't an issue for you but I don't think that negates that people can legitimately feel otherwise.
Okay. Doesn't negate the fact that I'm amused that people legitimately feel like this is a big deal anymore.
Wife kept her name; kids get mine. Of course her name is much easier to pronounce than mine.
Pretending surprise that it is still an issue strikes me as odd; it historically hasn't been an issue, as accepting the last name of the husband had overwhelming general acceptance. Feigned shock that anyone still 'clings' to that practice when in fact any controversy lies in the comparatively recent rejection of a very longstanding practice by what remains a fringe quarter of society is disingenuous.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 16, 2014, 12:20:35 PM
Didn't really crop up for me and my wife as she had a very common last name that she was glad to lose.
I know a girl who's definitely keeping her name. If she took her boyfriend her initials would be ASS :lol:
Glad it's not an issue for me though.
I also liked the traditional Scottish system, the wife takes the husbands name but her name is used for one of the children. So, say, 'Thomson Gunn', 'Robertson McKay' and the like.
Quote from: Caliga on February 16, 2014, 07:46:21 AM
On a related note: we have friends up in Boston who, when they got married, the dude took the wife's name. :wacko:
I'm seeing this too, or the kids getting the mother's last name when the parents both kept theirs.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Over here the standard thing is that women keep there maiden name and The children get their father's name.
I've the same thing with my Gf and my daughter
Till 2013 this was even mandated by law, only when the father was unknown or didn't recognize his child the mother's family name was given.
From 2013 you can choose the family name of your childern it should be either father's, mother's or both. But what you choose for the first child will also apply for the following child.
Quote from: Caliga on February 16, 2014, 07:46:21 AM
Oh, if my wife had hyphenated our surnames, it would have been completely ridiculous given how long both of them were. :lol:
On a related note: we have friends up in Boston who, when they got married, the dude took the wife's name. :wacko:
Until a decade or two ago foreigners couldn't be the official head of a household in Japan so it was very common for foreign guys to marry Japanese women and take on the wife's name. Most mixed race Japanese older than school age have Japanese surnames as a result, despite there being far more foreign men:Japanese women relationships than vice-versa.
Its pretty common with traditional Japanese people even. If a family has nothing but daughters they will have a guy who marries one of the daughters take on their name and become their official family heir. A lot more of a big deal in the past when only men could hold property and all that, but the tradition is still there, the conservative family of a female friend of mine is expecting it of any man she marries. I'm pretty sure my ex's mother was scouting out the possibilities of that with me too, I got lots of questions about my family and whether my cousins were married and that sort of thing.
Well my main thing is that I wanted everybody in the family to have the same last name. So I approached this question by first determining what her plan was. If she was planning on taking my name I would keep mine, if she was planning on keeping her name I would take hers. But none of this 'Smith-Chen family' crap. But in the event her last name was her Dad's, who she was estranged from at the time, and she was eager to take my name. So that was that.
So....not really sure how to answer the question.
Quote from: Lettow77 on February 17, 2014, 12:45:13 AM
Pretending surprise that it is still an issue strikes me as odd; it historically hasn't been an issue, as accepting the last name of the husband had overwhelming general acceptance. Feigned shock that anyone still 'clings' to that practice when in fact any controversy lies in the comparatively recent rejection of a very longstanding practice by what remains a fringe quarter of society is disingenuous.
I'm not seeing anyone saying they're surprised. Personally, I said that I was amused.
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2014, 09:44:36 AM
So....not really sure how to answer the question.
I think your answer is the same as a lot of us: Don't care.
If I ever get married (don't count on it) my girlfriend is probably going to keep her name. My kids have my name, I don't remember why we picked mine over hers but she was pretty against the Smith-Wessen combo(would have made a very long lastname). In Quebec you can also have the option of combining that half of 2 names to form a new one : Smith & Wessen can become Smessen, Wessith, etc.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 17, 2014, 10:20:14 AM
Smith & Wessen can become Smessen, Wessith, etc.
LOL? Well I guess that is one way to do it.
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2014, 10:25:02 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 17, 2014, 10:20:14 AM
Smith & Wessen can become Smessen, Wessith, etc.
LOL? Well I guess that is one way to do it.
I haven't heard of anyone doing it but it's right there on the form. :lol:
Option in California too.
Quote from: merithyn on February 17, 2014, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on February 17, 2014, 12:45:13 AM
Pretending surprise that it is still an issue strikes me as odd; it historically hasn't been an issue, as accepting the last name of the husband had overwhelming general acceptance. Feigned shock that anyone still 'clings' to that practice when in fact any controversy lies in the comparatively recent rejection of a very longstanding practice by what remains a fringe quarter of society is disingenuous.
I'm not seeing anyone saying they're surprised. Personally, I said that I was amused.
People having different priorities - hilarious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2014, 12:56:23 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 16, 2014, 12:20:35 PM
Didn't really crop up for me and my wife as she had a very common last name that she was glad to lose.
I know a girl who's definitely keeping her name. If she took her boyfriend her initials would be ASS :lol:
Glad it's not an issue for me though.
Sometimes, I gotta think that such acronym-phobia is pretty sad as well. I doubt people before recent modern times cared if their initials created a dirty word. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 17, 2014, 11:29:17 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2014, 12:56:23 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 16, 2014, 12:20:35 PM
Didn't really crop up for me and my wife as she had a very common last name that she was glad to lose.
I know a girl who's definitely keeping her name. If she took her boyfriend her initials would be ASS :lol:
Glad it's not an issue for me though.
Sometimes, I gotta think that such acronym-phobia is pretty sad as well. I doubt people before recent modern times cared if their initials created a dirty word. :rolleyes:
Nor did they really care about proper hygiene. :(
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 17, 2014, 11:29:17 AM
Sometimes, I gotta think that such acronym-phobia is pretty sad as well. I doubt people before recent modern times cared if their initials created a dirty word. :rolleyes:
It's all that leisure time we have to sit and think about stupid shit.
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2014, 10:58:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on February 17, 2014, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on February 17, 2014, 12:45:13 AM
Pretending surprise that it is still an issue strikes me as odd; it historically hasn't been an issue, as accepting the last name of the husband had overwhelming general acceptance. Feigned shock that anyone still 'clings' to that practice when in fact any controversy lies in the comparatively recent rejection of a very longstanding practice by what remains a fringe quarter of society is disingenuous.
I'm not seeing anyone saying they're surprised. Personally, I said that I was amused.
People having different priorities - hilarious.
I don't think it's genuine amusement. I think it's passive-aggressiveness.
Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2014, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2014, 10:58:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on February 17, 2014, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on February 17, 2014, 12:45:13 AM
Pretending surprise that it is still an issue strikes me as odd; it historically hasn't been an issue, as accepting the last name of the husband had overwhelming general acceptance. Feigned shock that anyone still 'clings' to that practice when in fact any controversy lies in the comparatively recent rejection of a very longstanding practice by what remains a fringe quarter of society is disingenuous.
I'm not seeing anyone saying they're surprised. Personally, I said that I was amused.
People having different priorities - hilarious.
I don't think it's genuine amusement. I think it's passive-aggressiveness.
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2014, 10:58:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on February 17, 2014, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on February 17, 2014, 12:45:13 AM
Pretending surprise that it is still an issue strikes me as odd; it historically hasn't been an issue, as accepting the last name of the husband had overwhelming general acceptance. Feigned shock that anyone still 'clings' to that practice when in fact any controversy lies in the comparatively recent rejection of a very longstanding practice by what remains a fringe quarter of society is disingenuous.
I'm not seeing anyone saying they're surprised. Personally, I said that I was amused.
People having different priorities - hilarious.
*shrugs* I don't find pratfalls funny; you don't find this funny. The beauty of diversity.
Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2014, 12:26:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2014, 10:58:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on February 17, 2014, 10:12:04 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on February 17, 2014, 12:45:13 AM
Pretending surprise that it is still an issue strikes me as odd; it historically hasn't been an issue, as accepting the last name of the husband had overwhelming general acceptance. Feigned shock that anyone still 'clings' to that practice when in fact any controversy lies in the comparatively recent rejection of a very longstanding practice by what remains a fringe quarter of society is disingenuous.
I'm not seeing anyone saying they're surprised. Personally, I said that I was amused.
People having different priorities - hilarious.
I don't think it's genuine amusement. I think it's passive-aggressiveness.
I've been called lots of things, but passive-aggressive isn't usually one of them. In this case, I'd have to be a whole lot more invested to bother with that.
Why my amusement offends garbon, who knows? Or cares for that matter. I think it's silly to worry about this stuff and I think it's funny when others do. He's like a dog with a bone now, though, and since it offends him, he's going to gnaw on it until he feels like he's somehow gotten to some supposed marrow that just isn't there. He's really good about putting thoughts and feelings on me that just aren't there because of his own pre-concieved notions what I do or don't like.
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2014, 10:25:02 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 17, 2014, 10:20:14 AM
Smith & Wessen can become Smessen, Wessith, etc.
LOL? Well I guess that is one way to do it.
Yeah... I knew a guy who did that. Combined Peele and... something, Stevens, maybe... to get "Steele". Sounded like a comic book hero.
:huh:
I don't think I've actually said anything about your thoughts and feelings. I've just noted a few times what a bitch* you're being on this issue. We already understand you find this amusing because you tell us every few posts. :mellow:
*like when you posit that it must be virile masculinity that causes people to care about this issue.
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2014, 01:21:48 PM
:huh:
I don't think I've actually said anything about your thoughts and feelings. I've just noted a few times what a bitch* you're being on this issue. We already understand you find this amusing because you tell us every few posts. :mellow:
*like when you posit that it must be virile masculinity that causes people to care about this issue.
Given that this poll was entirely with men in mind as specifically stated in the OP, I'm not sure that that's out of line. And if stating my opinion is "flip" and being a "bitch", too bad. Opinions were asked, and mine was given. If you're offended that I don't particularly care how others name themselves or their spouses, too bad. If you're offended that I think holding tightly to a naming convention that has no real value to our current societal norms is a bit of a joke, again, too bad. I'm not alone in my opinion, as the poll shows and others have stated, but somehow my opinion is suspect and worthy of being called a "bitch".
As for the rest, you make a habit of deciding what people mean rather than what they say, and regularly take the time to tell me what a bitch I am for those very thoughts that I never had. Honestly, if anyone's a bitch around here it's you, but that's not really news, is it?
:hmm: Does it have to be an either/or proposition?
Quote from: merithyn on February 17, 2014, 01:40:12 PM
Given that this poll was entirely with men in mind as specifically stated in the OP, I'm not sure that that's out of line. And if stating my opinion is "flip" and being a "bitch", too bad. Opinions were asked, and mine was given. If you're offended that I don't particularly care how others name themselves or their spouses, too bad. If you're offended that I think holding tightly to a naming convention that has no real value to our current societal norms is a bit of a joke, again, too bad. I'm not alone in my opinion, as the poll shows and others have stated, but somehow my opinion is suspect and worthy of being called a "bitch".
Other people said they didn't care, which doesn't seem to be the case with your person. You clearly care enough to mock those who might think differently (unless you are going to suggest that laughing at people isn't demeaning).
Quote from: merithyn on February 17, 2014, 01:40:12 PM
As for the rest, you make a habit of deciding what people mean rather than what they say, and regularly take the time to tell me what a bitch I am for those very thoughts that I never had. Honestly, if anyone's a bitch around here it's you, but that's not really news, is it?
Oh cry me a river. Can you point out where, in this thread, I indicated the thoughts that you've had?
Besides, I'm upfront about it. ;)
To answer your question, Meri, no it's not news.
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2014, 01:56:49 PM
To answer your question, Meri, no it's not news.
It would be very bizarre if it was. I think I've called myself that plenty of times. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2014, 01:56:27 PM
You are being judgmental about it though.
Judgmental? On languish?
Sounds like she fits right in.
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2014, 01:56:27 PM
Other people said they didn't care, which doesn't seem to be the case with your person. You clearly care enough to mock those who might think differently (unless you are going to suggest that laughing at people isn't demeaning).
Yes, and? Mocking people who think differently is kind of the heart of what Languish is, or had you forgotten where you are? Or is it just that I'm not allowed to do it for fear of being called a "bitch" since it's not really a woman thing to do?
Quote
Oh cry me a river. Can you point out where, in this thread, I indicated the thoughts that you've had?
Besides, I'm upfront about it. ;)
Who said that I was talking about this thread?
i would prefer the wife to take the last name. a nice compromise is the hyphen. i would never take her last name as that could be damaging to a career
Quote from: LaCroix on February 17, 2014, 03:03:41 PM
i would prefer the wife to take the last name. a nice compromise is the hyphen. i would never take her last name as that could be damaging to a career
For either party, which is why it's not as common as it once was for a woman to take the husband's name. Since women have careers, too, these days.
Having the same name makes things a lot easier. One of my friend's sons is forever having to explain that his mom is really his mom and that his mom and dad are not divorced.
That said, the mom has a well recognized name and so it would be a bigger pain for her to have to explain that she is still who she is.
Quote from: merithyn on February 17, 2014, 05:21:32 PM
For either party, which is why it's not as common as it once was for a woman to take the husband's name. Since women have careers, too, these days.
I figured that was why Maria Theresa did not take her husband's name. Nobody would really believe she was Archduchess of Austria with a name like Lorraine.
Actually, I often ending up using her name. She is the one who books the hotels, using her name. So when we check in, everybody calls me using her name, and I no longer bother to explain. There is often an assumption that she either disgards her maiden name, or we use my name to book the hotels.
I'm trying to find a shit to give for this issue, let alone two shits, and I cannot. A non-issue for me.
Aka no one will marry me.
You know it.
Why I voted that way :D
My ex took my name when we married, then changed back when we divorced. That led to one of the highlights of the period when I got to yell "Good, you didn't deserve my name!" as I slammed the door on the way out.
Good times....
Ike Turner should have beaten Tina for daring to keep his name.
I think he did.
Beat her more.
And this time put some stank on it.
Quote from: merithyn on February 17, 2014, 05:21:32 PMFor either party, which is why it's not as common as it once was for a woman to take the husband's name. Since women have careers, too, these days.
no. i meant the societal repercussions of taking a woman's last name. in some circles you'd be a joke, which could hurt your career. not destroy it, sure, but damage it
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2014, 07:45:57 PM
I'm trying to find a shit to give for this issue, let alone two shits, and I cannot. A non-issue for me.
I would prefer that no one changed their names upon marriage, as it's One More Goddamned Thing To Remember, and it takes me several years post-name change until I can keep it straight, but that's just me.
My wife kept her name, which was less work than changing it, so yay.
Quote from: ulmont on February 17, 2014, 10:42:55 PM
My wife kept her name, which was less work than changing it, so yay.
When my sister got married, while she took her husband's last name she also took the opportunity to drop her first name--which she hated and never used, we always called her by her middle name anyway--and she made her maiden name her middle name since she still considered it her identity, married or not.
My mom dropped her middle name and used her maiden name as her new middle name as well. AFAIK, all my sisters just replaced the last name completely.
Quote from: ulmont on February 17, 2014, 10:42:55 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2014, 07:45:57 PM
I'm trying to find a shit to give for this issue, let alone two shits, and I cannot. A non-issue for me.
I would prefer that no one changed their names upon marriage, as it's One More Goddamned Thing To Remember, and it takes me several years post-name change until I can keep it straight, but that's just me.
My wife kept her name, which was less work than changing it, so yay.
Does it cost money? It does, right?
Marriage is free in South Carolina. Just start introducing her as your wife and filing jointly.
No. Couldn't imagine it out of the serious relationships I've had; all with "unconventional" women, I guess.
My mother never formally changed names, she used both depending on circumstance. It created a variety of minor hassles, as CC mentioned; people did tend to think my parents were divorced, but I had lots of friends with either divorced parents or a one-parent household (probably the majority), so it wasn't really an issue at all when I was a kid.
We had a bad border crossing problem when my mother was trying to take us on the bus to Canada, to meet my father later, but our (my and my sister's) names didn't match my mother's, and we almost got sent back (pre-9/11, of course) -- them insinuating a custody-grab -- but for us calling my father up at work and getting him to say it was all good.
The joke is, she takes your name along with the rest of your shit. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2014, 12:20:40 AM
The joke is, she takes your name along with the rest of your shit. :P
:unsure:
She kind of takes the rest of your shit regardless, no?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 17, 2014, 11:46:55 PM
We had a bad border crossing problem when my mother was trying to take us on the bus to Canada, to meet my father later, but our (my and my sister's) names didn't match my mother's, and we almost got sent back (pre-9/11, of course) -- them insinuating a custody-grab -- but for us calling my father up at work and getting him to say it was all good.
See? This is the kind of nonsense I wanted to avoid. Everybody has one last name, I don't care what it is.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 09:13:30 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 17, 2014, 11:46:55 PM
We had a bad border crossing problem when my mother was trying to take us on the bus to Canada, to meet my father later, but our (my and my sister's) names didn't match my mother's, and we almost got sent back (pre-9/11, of course) -- them insinuating a custody-grab -- but for us calling my father up at work and getting him to say it was all good.
See? This is the kind of nonsense I wanted to avoid. Everybody has one last name, I don't care what it is.
It doesn't matter what your names are. Crossing a border these days with kids, if you are going with only one parent, it is advisable to have a letter signed by the other to avoid trouble.
http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/children/consent-letter
What we did is this: no-one changed their names; the kid takes my last name, and learns his mother's language as well as English.
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2014, 09:21:24 AM
What we did is this: no-one changed their names; the kid takes my last name, and learns his mother's language as well as English.
On the other hand your son was not given the secret Jewish Conspiracy handshake.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 09:31:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2014, 09:21:24 AM
What we did is this: no-one changed their names; the kid takes my last name, and learns his mother's language as well as English.
On the other hand your son was not given the secret Jewish Conspiracy handshake.
There is still time for that, when he's old enough to appreciate world domination.
Around Bar Mitzvah time?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2014, 10:05:09 AM
Around Bar Mitzvah time?
Malthus' son is not a Jew I don't think.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2014, 10:47:39 PM
When my sister got married, while she took her husband's last name she also took the opportunity to drop her first name--which she hated and never used, we always called her by her middle name anyway--and she made her maiden name her middle name since she still considered it her identity, married or not.
My buddy's wife did pretty much the same thing, as she previously had no middle name.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2014, 11:02:49 PM
Does it cost money? It does, right?
I think it would be a nominal amount if you do it in connection with the wedding license, but there's still a certain amount of hassle involved in changing it every-fucking-where.
Not surprised to learn that South Carolina still hasn't given up on common-law marriage.
Quote from: derspiess on February 18, 2014, 10:31:13 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2014, 10:47:39 PM
When my sister got married, while she took her husband's last name she also took the opportunity to drop her first name--which she hated and never used, we always called her by her middle name anyway--and she made her maiden name her middle name since she still considered it her identity, married or not.
My buddy's wife did pretty much the same thing, as she previously had no middle name.
I thought dropping your middle name and putting your maiden name there was what you traditionally did. Every woman in my family did so until my wife dropped her maiden name entirely.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 10:30:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2014, 10:05:09 AM
Around Bar Mitzvah time?
Malthus' son is not a Jew I don't think.
He's gone through the Catholic childhood religious stuff, essentially to placate my wife's parents.
Serious answer: he will decide what he believes in when he's old enough. He's learning about various religions, as part of his cultural education. He wasn't born Jewish (according to the general rules) as his mother is not Jewish, but the general rule isn't followed by all Jewish denominations - he can, if he so chooses, join one in which paternal ancestry is enough - or not.
I should have given my wife a list of Ed Anger approved names she could use.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 10:43:21 AM
I thought dropping your middle name and putting your maiden name there was what you traditionally did. Every woman in my family did so until my wife dropped her maiden name entirely.
I'm not familiar with that tradition.
Quote from: derspiess on February 18, 2014, 10:56:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 10:43:21 AM
I thought dropping your middle name and putting your maiden name there was what you traditionally did. Every woman in my family did so until my wife dropped her maiden name entirely.
I'm not familiar with that tradition.
Strange. It seems weird that both my father's and mother's family would have independently done this.
Quote from: derspiess on February 18, 2014, 10:56:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 10:43:21 AM
I thought dropping your middle name and putting your maiden name there was what you traditionally did. Every woman in my family did so until my wife dropped her maiden name entirely.
I'm not familiar with that tradition.
I've heard of it, but I've never known anyone who did it. Most of the women in my family just changed their last name to their husband's and nothing else. Of course, most of the women in my dad's family don't bother getting married at all, despite repeatedly being asked by their significant others.
Quote from: Malthus on February 18, 2014, 09:19:32 AM
It doesn't matter what your names are. Crossing a border these days with kids, if you are going with only one parent, it is advisable to have a letter signed by the other to avoid trouble.
http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/children/consent-letter
Not just signed, but notarized. Of course, in order to get a passport for a child, both parents have to sign off on it no matter who is named what. A notarized letter can be used for that, too, but you can't use it for going out of the country. The letter you use to leave the country has to have the "allowed" dates to be gone. If you overstay those dates, you risk the kid being taken from you when you come back across.
In her first marriage, my mother took my father's name. I think she was glad to get rid of her original last name given that there is some infamy around it. Additional friction came when my father wanted (and my mother declined) her to give up his name after the divorce. With the most recent marriage, she's slotted in her first married name as her middle name and taken new husband's name as her last name.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 11:00:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 18, 2014, 10:56:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 10:43:21 AM
I thought dropping your middle name and putting your maiden name there was what you traditionally did. Every woman in my family did so until my wife dropped her maiden name entirely.
I'm not familiar with that tradition.
Strange. It seems weird that both my father's and mother's family would have independently done this.
Among the more traditional of the Molotsch Mennonites it is traditional for boys to be given their mother's maiden name as a middle initial. The reason for this is obvious. There may be 5 John Wiebes in the phone book for your town of 500 people, but if you're lucky their mothers will have had different maiden names.
Quote from: ulmont on February 18, 2014, 10:37:52 AM
Not surprised to learn that South Carolina still hasn't given up on common-law marriage.
I never understood why any--especially conservative places--would want to have that in the first place. It seems to me that making people married by some automatic mechanism if they don't make the choice to do it themselves is just asking for a spike in the future divorce rate.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2014, 01:12:22 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 18, 2014, 10:37:52 AM
Not surprised to learn that South Carolina still hasn't given up on common-law marriage.
I never understood why any--especially conservative places--would want to have that in the first place. It seems to me that making people married by some automatic mechanism if they don't make the choice to do it themselves is just asking for a spike in the future divorce rate.
Well don't you generally have to agree to the common-law marriage? I don't think the state forces you to be married if you don't want to be.
I know in Texas it's automatic whether you like it or not. I think it was five years of co-habitation and you're hitched. It was that way when I lived there in the 90s anyway. It's probably a little different in each state.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2014, 01:19:58 PM
I know in Texas it's automatic whether you like it or not. I think it was five years of co-habitation and you're hitched. It was that way when I lived there in the 90s anyway. It's probably a little different in each state.
Hmm, wiki suggests differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States#Texas
QuoteCommon-law marriage is known as an "informal marriage", which can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony), or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. In the actual wording of the law there is no specification on the length of time that a couple must cohabitate to meet the second requirement of the 3-prong test.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2014, 01:15:24 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2014, 01:12:22 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 18, 2014, 10:37:52 AM
Not surprised to learn that South Carolina still hasn't given up on common-law marriage.
I never understood why any--especially conservative places--would want to have that in the first place. It seems to me that making people married by some automatic mechanism if they don't make the choice to do it themselves is just asking for a spike in the future divorce rate.
Well don't you generally have to agree to the common-law marriage? I don't think the state forces you to be married if you don't want to be.
I am not sure what you mean. Common law marriage means it is a deemed marriage after whatever legal threshold in the jurisdiction in question has been met. Here it is merely the passage of time living together.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2014, 01:27:48 PM
Hmm, wiki suggests differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States#Texas
QuoteCommon-law marriage is known as an "informal marriage", which can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony), or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. In the actual wording of the law there is no specification on the length of time that a couple must cohabitate to meet the second requirement of the 3-prong test.
Good. Maybe it was updated. There was a couple I knew in the Compaq factory who were married that way and the wife got it done without telling the husband. They laughed about it but I thought it was fucked up. The dude had two gold teeth in the front like a retarded rabbit man. Maybe she wanted the one of those.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2014, 01:15:24 PM
Well don't you generally have to agree to the common-law marriage? I don't think the state forces you to be married if you don't want to be.
Sure, you generally have to agree, but....
"They said we were married all the time! I deserve half their stuff (or their entire estate)!"
"No I didn't! (Or, if dead, [silence...])"
...common law marriage has high clusterfuck potential.
Quote from: ulmont on February 18, 2014, 01:55:26 PM
Sure, you generally have to agree, but....
"They said we were married all the time! I deserve half their stuff (or their entire estate)!"
"No I didn't! (Or, if dead, [silence...])"
...common law marriage has high clusterfuck potential.
It solved tons of problems like this for over a century. We were a frontier state where doing things like officially getting married were not always practical.
Naturally it has lasted long past its practical advantages but keep in mind we still have our not-so-interim Constitution from the Reconstruction period.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 01:58:14 PM
It solved tons of problems like this for over a century.
Did you mean "overcame"? The problems I was talking about were
caused by the existence of common law marriage as a viable option, not
solved.
Quote from: ulmont on February 18, 2014, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 01:58:14 PM
It solved tons of problems like this for over a century.
Did you mean "overcame"? The problems I was talking about were caused by the existence of common law marriage as a viable option, not solved.
Farmer Bob dies. There is no will, who gets the property? Maybe the woman everybody considered his wife but they never actually got officially married? Hence this solved this very problem. If Farmer Bob had enough property that people are going to be fighting over it than almost certainly he has a will or would have gotten officially married.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2014, 01:12:22 PM
I never understood why any--especially conservative places--would want to have that in the first place. It seems to me that making people married by some automatic mechanism if they don't make the choice to do it themselves is just asking for a spike in the future divorce rate.
"Makes an honest woman of her" and prevents bastards. I can definitely see the appeal for social conservatives.
I think the whole common-law marriage thing started because of the lack of justices of the peace to do marriage ceremonies, or refusing to go out into the wilds.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2014, 01:12:22 PM
I never understood why any--especially conservative places--would want to have that in the first place. It seems to me that making people married by some automatic mechanism if they don't make the choice to do it themselves is just asking for a spike in the future divorce rate.
Living in sin is sinful. So if you don't get married, the state will do it for you. But dammit, you're going to be biblical.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 18, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2014, 01:12:22 PM
I never understood why any--especially conservative places--would want to have that in the first place. It seems to me that making people married by some automatic mechanism if they don't make the choice to do it themselves is just asking for a spike in the future divorce rate.
Living in sin is sinful. So if you don't get married, the state will do it for you. But dammit, you're going to be biblical.
What about living as sin incarnate?
Quote from: ulmont on February 18, 2014, 10:37:52 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2014, 11:02:49 PM
Does it cost money? It does, right?
I think it would be a nominal amount if you do it in connection with the wedding license, but there's still a certain amount of hassle involved in changing it every-fucking-where.
Not surprised to learn that South Carolina still hasn't given up on common-law marriage.
I think it's a good thing.
To elaborate, because it's free and simple and because it gives cohabitants without a marriage license a chance to avoid being disinherited by intestacy or asshole behavior on the part of the decedent. If that's a "clusterfuck" it's still basic justice.
SON OF A
Walked right into that one.
MAH INNOCENCE
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 05:12:24 PMIf Farmer Bob had enough property that people are going to be fighting over it than almost certainly he has a will or would have gotten officially married.
This turns out not to be true, is my point. Duane Allman and Otis Redding (IIRC for Redding; definitely for Duane Allman) both had multiple estate claimants with viable common-law marriage claims.
Quote from: ulmont on February 19, 2014, 09:17:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 05:12:24 PMIf Farmer Bob had enough property that people are going to be fighting over it than almost certainly he has a will or would have gotten officially married.
This turns out not to be true, is my point. Duane Allman and Otis Redding (IIRC for Redding; definitely for Duane Allman) both had multiple estate claimants with viable common-law marriage claims.
My point is that it was an useful expedient that made sense back in the frontier days that has anachronistically held on because that is the kind of stupid shit we do.