I'm totally fine with my family having a random composition of names. It would be awesome to come up with a new last name for the kids for example. If we need me, just let me know...
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
316 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19959 readers
5032 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So if this passes then the next bill will be to force all women that marry to change their last name to reflect their husbands last name. This, of course will be part of a larger bill to outlaw gay marriage.
And then when women decide to protest this by not getting married there will be an economic bill that will be passed that states unmarried women will be taxed at a higher rate - and they will use the excuse that we need to shore up the "traditional family" to fight against all this "God-less liberal brainwashing".
This is the dream
And then when women decide to protest this by not getting married there will be an economic bill that will be passed that states unmarried women will be taxed at a higher rate - and they will use the excuse that we need to shore up the “traditional family” to fight against all this “God-less liberal brainwashing”.
Historically, when countries do this kind of thing it's more often targeted at unmarried men. The English have done it, the Ottomans did, even ancient Rome did at one point (though Rome taxed both men and women for being celibate or childless, but men were subject to the tax for a wider span of ages). A bunch more places around the world have at various times either tax unmarried and/or childless men or flirted with the idea - it's a shockingly long list. Most of them didn't do the same to unmarried women, or if they did the tax applied to women for fewer years or was higher for men. Most of those have been dead for decades at this point, in large part because they're not effective at getting people to breed.
In the US, Missouri briefly taxed unmarried men, before replacing it with a poll tax the next year. Montana did as well, though it got struck down by their courts (not because of gender inequality but because of phrasing in the state constitution that was interpreted to prohibit that kind of tax). New York, Connecticut, Wyoming, New Jersey, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota, and California all flirted with the idea of taxing bachelors but never passed it. Michigan proposed a bachelor tax 9 different times but never managed to pass it.
I don't know of any cases where unmarried or childless women were subject to a punitive tax but unmarried or childless men weren't (or even cases where it was seriously proposed), barring a few cases where the age ranges were different, typically with the tax applying to women starting at an earlier starting age but for men to a later final age (for example women 20-50 vs men 25-60 by the Romans, or women 20-45 vs men 25-50 by the Soviets). I'd be curious when, how often or to what extent that has ever happened.
Thanks for that write up. I had no clue that these taxes existed. Was the purpose of taxing unmarried men more due to the fact that historically men were the ones earning a living while women were more unpaid labor (house wives)? Or was it that women historically haven't had much of a say in who they will marry?
This would also disenfranchise basically every trans person in the country, which isn't a bug, it's a feature. Last I heard, trans people were having trouble getting any passport under the new administration.
While you're being blatant about the hate, how about we give married men 3/5ths an extra vote at the same time?
It's actually worse than the 3/5 as I understand, since that was about slaveholder states getting 3/5 of their slave population count towards the census.
Disenfranchised women will count towards the census completely.
So they do want to end womens suffrage..I'm shocked y'all haven't physically removed him from his position yet..
It's a focal problem.
This is something he could do, and people are convinced he won't do it, until he does and then they're pissed that he did.
A confrontation is coming, but the problem is it isn't just one person but an entire party in power. If it's as bad I think it will be—and we make it out of this as a single country—we're going to need de-Nazification laws, but with the Republican party. "De-Republicanification"...
Don't Stop Reconstruction This Time
Also embrace deconstruction for some states namely Florida rip up the roots of civilization and give it back to the swamps. The Seminole can have the entire region once its all done.
republiQan women are okie-dokie with this.
It's what tiny baby Jesus would want.
Changing your last name when getting married is dumb and we finally have the proof of it.
I'm surprised at how controversial this is (here). My partner is not my property. I don't need to slap my name over theirs like some body of water, to make myself feel strong, masculine and secure.
If that's how you view it, then sure? But my wife was excited to take my last name. I actively told her that she could keep her name and that the change doesn't matter to me in the slightest but she still ended up taking my name. I don't think anyone is strong arming their spouse into a decision like that.
Wife wanting to take your last name =/= You taking away her last name.
I don’t think anyone is strong arming their spouse into a decision like that.
You are vastly underestimating the scale of fragile masculinity (in the US at least). My partner's ex's told them how important it is to take their last name. I've heard the same thing from my sisters, and friends.
If you want some proof, just jump into any conservative instance or reddit and ask if a woman should reject changing her name.
Oh man, if there's men beating their wife don't worry, there's men forcing them to take their last name
When my wife and I were married, we wanted to create a brand new last name that both of us changed to. The legal requirements to make that happen were just crazy.
If US, what state?
North Carolina. There was a requirement to post notices in 3 major newspapers running for 4 weeks. And something about appearing before a judge who could reject the change for any reason they wanted, including reasons like "I don't like what color shirt you are wearing today". There were a lot of other requirements too, like background checks, fingerprints, character witnesses, etc.
North Carolina. There was a requirement to post notices in 3 major newspapers running for 4 weeks.
This sounds like one of those very old requirements no one has ever bothered to remove - like once upon a time this would be a genuinely useful requirement to keep everyone in the region on the same page as to who people are, prevent county or city records from losing who you are, etc.
And something about appearing before a judge who could reject the change for any reason they wanted, including reasons like “I don’t like what color shirt you are wearing today”.
So, like everything else in or adjacent to family court complete with judges that are tyrannical despots over their tiny fiefdoms, who are fully allowed to apply whatever prejudices they might have unchecked for any reason or no reason at all?
There were a lot of other requirements too, like background checks, fingerprints, character witnesses, etc.
More very old-school requirement to ensure you aren't trying to create a new identity to escape previous legal entanglements. Perfectly reasonable for an era before easily searchable digital records, less necessary now.
You should have gotten married in Michigan. My spouse and I could both change are names to whatever we wanted to.
Not changing your last name when getting married can be annoying too (ie. USPS forwarding mail to new address for people with the same surname as you, and the spouse with a different name has to file more paperwork to get their mail forwarded). There are a lot of things predicated on same surname in the US. It sucks.
What? Spouse and I have different last names. Mail forwarding wasn't an issue. Blended and multi-generation households are not uncommon these days.
People can't change their last name when getting married here (they need to go through the whole process like anyone else wanting to change their name if they want to do it) and it's such a non issue. Your ID has your address, show your ID proving you live at the same address and they hand you the package.
It's just a bunch of problems the US created for itself by not having any actual ID.
Not exclusive to the US. Japan also has problems with it. When both spouses are Japanese citizens, they MUST choose one of their names to use by law.
Yep but the US never adopted a national ID that makes sense and that's where it becomes an issue
I claim we can change our entire name.
Finally, those kids whose parents named them the dumbest names ever will have a way to easily fix it.
"No, now it's just Jennifer, spelled the normal way, and my mom is still ghetto but she isn't ruining my identity any more."
You can, at least in my state. Most people just change their last name. It’s not limited to gender, either. I could have changed my name to Hahaha FuckYou. My wife insisted I didn’t.
If my voting rights were stripped by this law, I would know what to do, and who to do it to. I wouldn't become a secondary citizen (at best), or nothing but a (wage/birthing) slave.
As a Mother I AGREE with all this! Why should me AND MY DAUGHTERS get a say in our Healthcare, Economy, National Security, or Opportunities? And WHY don't my Adult Kids TALK to me anymore? It's JOE BIDENS FAULT!
Not enough typos.
They aren't typos if you're uneducated, that would indicate they made a simple mistake. Those people are just that way.
I sure hope Obama does a good job explaining the "unintended" consequences of this so the Republicans who vote for it won't blame him for letting them pass it.