Bang Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Good grief.. I swear, THIS is one guy who needs to be taken out and caned with a metal pole. Talk about clogging up the courts with total and complete nonsense... Both of these people AND their lawyers out to be thrown into the ocean. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_re_us/take_my_wife_s_name Man files lawsuit to take wife's name By GREG RISLING, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 12, 5:52 PM ET LOS ANGELES - Mike Buday isn't married to his last name. In fact, he and his fiancee decided before they wed that he would take hers. But Buday was stunned to learn that he couldn't simply become Mike Bijon when they married in 2005. ADVERTISEMENT As in most other states, that would require some bureaucratic paperwork well beyond what a woman must go through to change her name when marrying. Instead of completing the expensive, time-consuming process, Buday and his wife, Diana Bijon, enlisted the American Civil Liberties Union and filed a discrimination lawsuit against the state of California. They claim the difficulty faced by a husband seeking to change his name violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. "Diana and I feel strongly about gender equality for both men and women," Buday said. "I think the most important thing in all of this is to bring it to a new level of awareness." Click the link for more if you can stomach this pansy What a total pantywaist. By the way,, if the woman doesn't want to take his name, she doesn't have to. My wife didn't. A Chinese named "Tayman" doesn't really work, and besides for what she does for a living, (translation and interpreting) her own name is better to get jobs. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I suspect this is one of the (rare, I usually agree with you) cases where we disagree. Name me one compelling reason why the government should be in the business of enforcing people changing their names in only one direction, determined by gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Eh...with a last name like Buday, I might consider switching as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Eh...with a last name like Buday, I might consider switching as well. Well, it's not like his name is Barrak Hussein Obamma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 14, 2007 Author Share Posted January 14, 2007 I suspect this is one of the (rare, I usually agree with you) cases where we disagree. Name me one compelling reason why the government should be in the business of enforcing people changing their names in only one direction, determined by gender. Well, like I said, she doesn't have to change her name. It's not in the law. It's a custom. As i recall in MD all we had to do was check a box off in our license application for her name to remain the same. Women aren't property anymore, this isn't necessary to prove it to anyone. This lawsuit is going to waste HOW much money? I'd rather a judge take a week off and go bone his secretary in Bermuda than to pay his salary to sit on a bench and hear this ridiculous waste of time. Jrock might be on to something, though.... Could be an ulterior motive. Maybe we should ask what MSF thinks. :laugh: I daresay this might push him over the last edge. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 "Diana and I feel strongly about gender equality for both men and women," Buday said. "I think the most important thing in all of this is to bring it to a new level of awareness." Ok, here's my question, if they are so big on gender equality and they want to bring it to a new level of awareness, then why does he take her name? Seems to me that if they were really equal they might both change their last name to something independent of both of them. Second, I am so getting tired of all these folks who want to protest everything, and want to make a federal case out of every matter of disagreement. The 60's are gone people! It's time to put the bra back on, and realize that the whole "protest everything" movement was just a bad dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 It appears he wants to take her name since his fiance' doesn't have any brothers and she'd like to continue her family name instead of it ending with her marriage (and her adoption of his name). And since he is estranged from his father and isn't particularly attached to his own last name, he agreed that he'd take her name. So they actually have a reason for what they want to do instead of just protesting or something. I don't see why this should be a big deal - if he wants to take her name, then it shouldn't take a lawsuit to do so, but apparently the state government is making it a pain for a simple process. Let the couple do what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest skinsmatic Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 exercising his rights seems reasonable, glad to hear iit pisses conservatives off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 glad to hear iit pisses conservatives off. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Good grief.. I swear, THIS is one guy who needs to be taken out and caned with a metal pole.Talk about clogging up the courts with total and complete nonsense... Both of these people AND their lawyers out to be thrown into the ocean. Having now worked in a courhouse for a few months, I'm pretty convinced that this argument is completely bunk. The courts aren't in danger of being "clogged up." Cases that are actually frivolous get dismissed quickly and don't take up much of anyone's time. It's the real cases that require the court to spend resources.As far as this case goes, it will probably be resolved pretty easily. There is really no good reason to have the rule go one way for wives and the other way for husbands. Why not give people the choice? I would be surprised if the California attorney general opposes this. They'll probably get a judgment without even having to show up in court - if the legislature doesn't change the law before they even get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 14, 2007 Author Share Posted January 14, 2007 exercising his rights seems reasonable, glad to hear iit pisses conservatives off. Yeah, nevermind using the legal system to waste some money and some time. As long as someone you don't like is mad, that makes it a good thing. Hopefully what DJ says is right, this will go away without it actually having to cost a single taxpayer cent. My entire problem with it is using the courts over it to make a very pointless "gender equality' point. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 If he wants to use his wife's name fine. I don't see any problem with it. The guy sounds like he is whipped. I bet she makes him pee sitting down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 exercising his rights seems reasonable, glad to hear iit pisses conservatives off. Double :doh: :doh: and here I sit wondering why our country is in the shape that its in, and viola right in front of me is the answer, and its this sort of childishness that permeates our society. Generalization? Sure, but where there's smoke there's fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Wasn't there a thread ealrier statiung political correctness is ruining this country?.....Well this goes hand n' hand with that........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Y'know, yesterday when I read this thread, I was amused. Here we've got a guy, who, admittedly, has a valid legal point, but his "damages", in this case, is that if his wife wanted to change her name, she could do it by checking a box on the marriage license, but if he has to do it, then he has to do what? a second piece of paper for "name change"? An extra twenty bucks? And it involves California, which is always good to laugh at, too. But as I read the thread again, this morning, I'm frankly getting ticked. The guy's right. The government has created one set of rules for men, and a different set of rules for women. In violation of both the California and the US Constitutions. The guy's not responsible for the degradation of society. The people who passed, and enforced, legal discrimination are. And for all you folks who're nobly concerned about the incredible burden justice places on our poor, overworked, court system: If this case ever so much as makes it to a courtroom, it will be because the government decided to spend taxpayers money, trying to defend discrimination. Don't want to clutter up the courts? Tell the government to admit that they're wrong on this one (because they are), and the whole thing's done with. The people who're pointing out discrimination aren't the ones causing the problem. The people doing the discrimination (and defending it) are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Plus his last name sounds like an ass-cleaning device. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 If he wants to use his wife's name fine. I don't see any problem with it. The guy sounds like he is whipped. I bet she makes him pee sitting down. I am not picking on you Johnny.......just read this and wanted to jump in. Is this talking in circles? Because he has chosen to make a change......he is a *****? I am not being rude......just wondering. I think he has a point. What about those couples that choose to hyphen their names? Should I decide to marry........I will keep my name. I use it professionally.....and there are way too many certificates to have to change. If my man wants to change to a Hispanic last name......then why not? I don't see why this makes him a PANSY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I thought people legally changed their names all the time. Even men. Since when did one need to sue the state to do it? Because he wants to do it for a woman? Frankly, I don't see why the guy just can't refer to himself with her last name (kinda like having a stage name), have the kids legally adopt the wife's name and leave it at that. If it's that big a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I thought people legally changed their names all the time. Even men. Since when did one need to sue the state to do it? Because he wants to do it for a woman?Frankly, I don't see why the guy just can't refer to himself with her last name (kinda like having a stage name), have the kids legally adopt the wife's name and leave it at that. If it's that big a deal. To legally change your name.......you have to go to court. I dont think it would take a law suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I thought people legally changed their names all the time. Even men. Since when did one need to sue the state to do it? Because he wants to do it for a woman?Frankly, I don't see why the guy just can't refer to himself with her last name (kinda like having a stage name), have the kids legally adopt the wife's name and leave it at that. If it's that big a deal. He's suing because of how easy it is for a woman to change her name on the marriage certificate vs. how hard it is for a man to do the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I thought people legally changed their names all the time. Even men. Since when did one need to sue the state to do it? Because he wants to do it for a woman?Frankly, I don't see why the guy just can't refer to himself with her last name (kinda like having a stage name), have the kids legally adopt the wife's name and leave it at that. If it's that big a deal. Having recently changed my name (for personal reasons - not because I got married), I can tell you that it requires going to court anyways. I had to pay a filing fee, have a notice to be published in the newspaper, and then waited a few months to see if anyone objected before I could get a court order ... There's only two times you can change your name for "free" - when you get your citizenship (which my parents did) or after you get married (apparently, only if you're a woman). Otherwise, it requires going to court. So I guess he had a choice to either go to court and get a name change or go to court and get the law changed ... I think it's reasonable for him to choose the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Having recently changed my name (for personal reasons - not because I got married), I can tell you that it requires going to court anyways. I had to pay a filing fee, have a notice to be published in the newspaper, and then waited a few months to see if anyone objected before I could get a court order ... There's only two times you can change your name for "free" - when you get your citizenship (which my parents did) or after you get married (apparently, only if you're a woman). Otherwise, it requires going to court. So I guess he had a choice to either go to court and get a name change or go to court and get the law changed ... I think it's reasonable for him to choose the latter. If you, as a woman, decide to change your name BACK, after getting divorced......the woman must ASK and it can be done AT THE TIME of divorce as part of the proceedings. If you FORGET......as did a certain blonde who shall remain nameless.......you must GO BACK TO COURT.......and follow the proceedure you mentioned above. He is making changes for future generations. I wonder if men who fought to give women the right to vote were called pansies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I wonder if men who fought to give women the right to vote were called pansies? No, they were sissies, not pansies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I worked with a guy that changed hios name to his wifes name and he was one whipped boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I worked with a guy that changed hios name to his wifes name and he was one whipped boy And I can name you many men I know who did NOT change their names to their wife's and they are whipped too. I don't know if there is a correlation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.