national | REPORTS
Why can't a husband freely take his wife's surname?
by Bailey Porter
When New Yorkers
Elizabeth Batton and
Garrett Sorenson married
last August, they wanted to adopt
each other’s last name as a second
surname, making them the Batton
Sorensons. But there was no option
on their marriage license application
to do so. Elizabeth could easily
change her surname to Sorenson, or
to Batton-Sorenson, but for a man to
adopt his wife’s name is another story.
That’s because although New York
is one of only six states in the U.S. that
recognize a statutory right for men to
take their wives’ last name, the couple
married in Kentucky, where no such
law exists. Under most states’ laws, if a
man wants to take his wife’s name he
must petition the court, advertise in a
newspaper and pay hundreds of dollars
in fees. A woman needs only to fill out
a marriage license application.
California could soon become the
seventh equitable name-change state,
if a bill from state Assemblywoman
Fiona Ma is successful. It would give
married spouses and domestic partners
equal opportunity to take their
surname of choice. “It’s about equality
in relationships,” Ma says about
the proposal, which would also
change gender-biased language in
current marriage statutes.
Backing the bill are several ACLU
California chapters and the LGBT advocacy group Equality California. Last
December, the ACLU of Southern
California filed suit on behalf of Diana
Bijon and Michael Buday, a married
couple who wanted to take Bijon as
their last name but ran into similar
roadblocks. The lawsuit brought a lot
of attention to the name-change problem,
says Ma, who has since received
many calls from men who are in similar
situations to Buday.
Batton says her name is important to
her, but so is her husband’s; the two last
names would represent the joining of
two families: “We associate ourselves
with the things we call ourselves. It’s an
important part of our identity.”
|