Michael Buday wants to become Michael Bijon. He is the husband of Diana Bijon and wants to take her surname because, he says, “Diana’s dad has become my father figure and I want to honor that.â€ÂÂ
The problem is that, in most states, it is more difficult and expensive for a man to take his wife’s surname than for a woman to take her husband’s surname. Only six states currently allow a man to change his name to his wife’s as easily as vice versa. Those accommodating six are Georgia (which I’m proud to say is my state), Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, and North Dakota.
Michael Buday lives in California. According to an ABC News report on the case by Michelle Rittner published in Men’s News Daily, “Under California state law, he needed to pay more than $300, go to court, file a petition, and publicly advertise his name change for four weeks in a local newspaper. If he had simply gone along with tradition, it would have cost only $50 to $80.†He is contesting the law in court.
The tradition of the wife – and children – taking the husband’s name did not evolve for arbitrary reasons. Nor did it originate as a mechanism for this supposedly “man’s world†to oppress women and deny their identities. It evolved in large part because the special biological vulnerabilities women had because of their relative weakness and propensity to pregnancy meant that they were not historically well-equipped to protect and provide for themselves. Thus, men, usually fathers or husbands, were expected by society to shoulder those responsibilities. Women took the husband’s name because he took on the burden of their protection and support.
Having children inherit the husband’s surname guaranteed legal fathers for those born inside wedlock. There was little dispute about mothers since the biological process of childbirth meant that the identity of a mother was rarely in dispute.
However, the practice of taking on the husband’s name has always caused difficulties for some people. Men who hate their surnames were obliged to pass them along to their wives and on to their young. Of the few cases I’ve read about in which men – often at extra expense and trouble – took their wives’ names, they have tended to be men who did not like the surnames with which they were born. I recall a fellow named Michael Hitler who took his wife’s surname on marriage and continued using that name after their divorce. In another case, a news article stated, “It’s not that he’s wishy-washy†but a man whose last name was Wishy believed any possible children of his and his wife’s union would be better off as McQueens than as Wishys.
One problem with the tradition of passing surnames on through men was that families with only daughters saw their names die out.
Today there is no compelling reason to foist the custom of the wife’s taking the husband’s surname on those who prefer to do otherwise. Men who want to take their wives’ surnames should face no discrimination in the form of extra costs or difficulties.
