Comments on: Florida Accuses Man of Fraud For Taking Wife’s Name, Then Backs Off

By: Ro

Ro — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 15:49:46 +0000

A name change by a man to the family name of the woman can indicate a respect for the family of the woman. If she’s the only child and marries then the name of her family dies with her unless she retains her madien name and her children are given her surname. It seems this man wanted to accomplish two things. Share the name of his wife and honor her family name by having it continue into the next generation where otherwise it would not. He even stated in the article, there were plenty of males in his family to carry his family name.

How is that doing anything other than loving and honoring his wife, his marriage and the idea of his future family as a whole?

Please remember the taking of the male name carried into American society from English society from a time when women were viewed as PROPERTY. It had very little to do with the “role” of the man versus the “role” of the woman in a marriage and everything to do with possession and ownership.

And don’t get me started on historically traditional reasons a male may take the name of the family he marries into…that would probably make the “fundamentalists” and mysoginists (of both sexes) in this comment thread have a brain bleed…

By: @IDIOTSATLARGE

@IDIOTSATLARGE — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 03:53:42 +0000

Actually, women do pay child support and alimony. At least, the ex-wife of one of my family members does. She divorced him and did not seek custody of the child, so the kid lives with the father. She is legally bound to pay (mainly because she does not otherwise aid in taking care of the child in any way, and her ex-husband is now a single father who has to take care of himself AND the child after being unemployed for some time).

By: ReMarker

ReMarker — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:15:26 +0000

You are right, Mark: “However, in Florida, a husband must go through a formal name change process in court to legally adopt his wife’s last name. It seems to me that this is a violation of the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” It is also a violation of the equal protection clause that I could not change my name when I got married unless I paid my state several hundred dollars in court costs to legally change it because my state does not recognize my same-sex marriage license (legally obtained in DC). If, when I divorced my first (male) spouse, I had decided to go back to my maiden name then the name change would have been free. But I kept my married name because we had a child and my soon to be ex-husband convinced me to keep his name so our child would have both her parents with the same name. Now that I am married again it is very weird for me to have my ex’s last name and not my new spouse’s name. If I had gone back to my maiden name it wouldn’t be so weird. Now, in order to change it back to my maiden name or take my wife’s name or hyphenate my maiden name with her’s then I must pay to get a lawyer to draw up name change papers and pay the court to change it. But if I had (re)married to a man then it wouldn’t cost me anything. I would just take the marriage license to Social Security and the DMV, etc. and my name change would be legal. And this name change deal is just ONE of over a thousand ways I am getting screwed over by DOMA.

By: IdiotsAtLarge

IdiotsAtLarge — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 18:19:00 +0000

Now if we can just get women to start paying child support and alimony instead of it being a one sided afair, all to their benefit even if unjust!

By: Jennie

Jennie — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:39:24 +0000

AMEN MARK! WELL SAID…

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:31:01 +0000

My wife and I were married in Florida in 1999. At this time, neither of us has adopted the others’ last name. However, I would have no qualms about taking my wife’s last name and have thought of doing so. However, in Florida, a husband must go through a formal name change process in court to legally adopt his wife’s last name. It seems to me that this is a violation of the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. One would think that the Florida legislature could easily amend the existing statute and do away with all this nonsense.

By: cncrnd

cncrnd — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 14:37:26 +0000

Posted by: B-K KnightRider | January 31, 2013, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm, Sure. If that new “tradition” fits you perfectly then go ahead.

By: JohnC

JohnC — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:31:38 +0000

If they did consider the possibility of fraud would they not be required to show the basis for that such as some prior convictions, warrants, etc.? I wouldn’t think they had the authority based merely on “it might be fraud”. When such a ruling is made the person doing so should be required to reference some law or such as the basis for the ruling and probably have a superior approve the ruling.

By: JohnC

JohnC — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:27:25 +0000

It could be reaonable for the DMV or other agencies to ponder fraud (you can’t change your name to escape your past). But the time to consider that is when he first applied, not some time down the line after you’ve finalized all other aspects of the name change.

btw, folks here obviously have various opinions as to whether a man should take his wife’s name which is an understandable cultural question. But strictly legally there should be no problem as long as he isn’t changing his name to hide his past idendity to escape legal issues.

By: GAW

GAW — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:22:55 +0000

Maybe he’ll wear her clothes too.