Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

Frank D. Russo

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Sponsors

What’s In a Name? California Legislation to Ensure Equality in Name Change Options

Vivek-Malhotra.jpg

By Vivek Malhotra

Newly married, Michael and Diana decided that they wanted to share one family name. To them, it was a deeply personal decision, but a simple change: Michael Buday would take his wife’s last name, Bijon, as his own. Little did they know the fuss it would cause.

Their challenge against a government that refused to officially recognize Michael’s choice to take his wife’s name has inspired state legislation to codify the rights of men and women alike to make their own name choices upon marriage or domestic partnership. The bill, AB 102, was introduced this year by San Francisco Assembly member Fiona Ma, and is co-sponsored by the ACLU and Equality California.

It all started with a Los Angeles County marriage license application, divided right down the middle of the page into “Groom’s Personal Data,” and “Bride’s Personal Data.” On the bride’s side were spaces to indicate both her birth and current names, but no similar option for the groom to indicate a change in name. Excited about their impending nuptials, Michael and Diana filled out the form to the best of their ability, and decided they would make sure the name change was recorded accurately on their official license.

Soon after the wedding, however, when they went back to submit their signed marriage license, they were told that Michael would have to petition the court if he wanted to change his name officially. To their dismay, this would involve a court appearance, paying an over three-hundred dollar fee, and publishing the name in a newspaper for four weeks to ensure there were no objections. The injustice in this double standard was starting to sink in: was a woman expected to go through a court process if she decided to take her husband’s name after marriage?

Their local congressman’s office suggested that Michael might try going to a local Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office and getting a new license with his married name. Marriage license in hand, Michael was met with laughter and ridicule by the local DMV workers. Even after talking to the DMV manager, Michael was unable to get a driver license reflecting his choice to change his name.

Michael and Diana gave the government one last shot to do right by them. They filled out and sent the state Office of Vital Records an application to amend their California marriage license to reflect Michael’s correct married name. The agency wrote back that it could not change the name.

The ACLU of Southern California ultimately filed a lawsuit in federal court based on constitutional guarantees of equal protection and state anti-discrimination statutes.

The publicity surrounding Michael and Diana’s story and the related lawsuit sparked much interest among state lawmakers who wanted to ensure that California law respects the name choices of married couples. Equality California and other LGBT organizations have also received a number of complaints from domestic partners who faced considerable difficulty in recording their name changes without resorting to the judicial process.

AB 102 rejects antiquated, gender-based restrictions on name choices upon marriage, and affords the same options to domestic partners who are not currently able to get married in California. Specifically, the bill codifies equal name change options. Six other states have already codified name change rights.

The bill also cleans up gender-biased language in California’s current marriage statutes and updates state forms and certificates for marriage and domestic partnership to ensure that name changes are expedient and can be recorded for legal and identification purposes.

Finally, the bill cleans up existing state law to ensure that not only female spouses, but also male spouses and domestic partners are protected from discrimination based on their name choices.

Although California recognizes a common law right of individuals to change their names without resorting to the judicial process, courts have found that the government is not required to recognize a name adopted by common law means on official documents.

AB 102 passed the Assembly with bi-partisan support, and cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. It must pass the full Senate, and be approved by the full Assembly once more before it can be sent to the Governor.

Vivek Malhotra is a Legislative Advocate for the ACLU in their California Legislative Office.

Posted on July 13, 2007

Comments

So what's wrong with Arnold Schriver-Schwarzenegger?! Come on Arny, sign the bill, it's OK, really !

Posted by: Frank Treadway at July 17, 2007 10:06 PM

oh my! why, oh why, does it have to be so difficult? i hope this changes. it makes no sense to have such a horrible double-standard.

me and my fiancee are both changing to a whole new name. i fear its going to a headache.

Posted by: Lety at August 24, 2007 09:12 PM

I was sincerely wondering what is the most recent progress of this bill? Or the next scheduled step...thanks.

Posted by: Leah at August 30, 2007 11:47 AM

Has this passed?? My fiance and I want to take his middle name. We are getting married this July. Has anyone been through the process?? thanks

Posted by: nicole at April 24, 2008 07:36 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker