Just curious. Why make an exception for marriage? If the intention is so people can identify you if they recently knew you by your previous name, that seems even more pertinent.
Used to think monogamy was very common in birds, but IRC thanks to DNA testing, we now know plenty of baby birds have a different daddy. Ie. they raise the baby together, but they have an open relationship and impregnate/get impregnated by other birds.
Less that they “have an open relationship” and more that the birds sneak around behind each-other’s backs. Males go off and try to sneakily impregnate other females, females sneak around and try to get impregnated by other males. You find it in apes too.
Isn’t this anthropomorphizing, though? Is there evidence that the mates would experience emotional distress if they learned their partners were “cheating” on them?
Being in a consensually monogamous relationship, I know I would and my husband would, but how much of that is cultural? I’m not really convinced it’s something that’s ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, though if you have a source about this that discredits my (admittedly amateurish) hypothesis, I’d be open to learning more.
Sure, but saying “have an open relationship” is also anthropomorphizing. Also, sneaking around describes what happens much better. I don’t know what it looks like with birds, but with apes when a non-dominant male mates with a female, they have to sneak around to do it. If the dominant male catches the non-dominant male he’ll attack him.
Sure and you can have landownership without paperwork. Pretty confident if you went on a guys farm plot 10k years ago he would make it clear who owned it.
I’d be curious about this claim. There’s pair bonding in other species, and other species that are (mostly) monogamous, but an explicit formal declaration of a monogamous pairing is something that doesn’t happen until you have some kind of culture and by the time we have any kinds of surviving records (even mostly coherent oral traditions) of anything religion already has it claws in a lot of things.
The answer is that there shouldn’t be. And a woman changing her name to match her husband’s is archaic patriarchal bullshit. I’m glad my wife decided not to do that.
Mine did, but that’s mostly because she didn’t change it back after the divorce from her ex was finalized because she figured we were headed in that general direction and it would save her some paperwork.
I made a point of telling her it was up to her, and that things like both of us hyphenating her maiden name and my name were on the table if she wanted, but she wanted to take my name and I’m fine with that.
I figured the odds are that it started as patriarchal bullshit in the most literal sense. Less claiming ownership of the woman like you are thinking and more claiming ownership of the children.
But I suspect that a lot of cultural institutions that are considered patriarchal bullshit had their origins in trying to square the circle of wanting men to be materially responsible for their offspring and also paternity being non-certain with no obvious solution using bronze age technology. So you legally and culturally tie man and woman together, make any of their offspring legally his and bear his name, and leave it to him to make sure no other man is fathering children with her.
Compare to groups like the Mosuo where there are no permanent pair bonds, but also men aren’t materially responsible for their offspring or raising them - children belong to their mother’s family, only. Women are still supposed to know who fathered their children, but I suspect you’ll never get away from that as a norm just to avoid half siblings breeding.
I’m just spit-balling here, but I assume the reason for requiring someone to disclose a recent name change is so that you don’t have someone trying to run under a new name for reasons of deception. “What’s that? Oh no, it’s okay, I know that Donald Trump can’t be on the ballot, but my name is Ronald Krump. Common mistake.”
In most jurisdictions you can legally change your name when you get married without paying a fee or filing any other paperwork (don’t ask me if that applies to men, that’s a whole other archaic bit of bullshit). It’s therefore also the most common reason for someone to change their name, and I guess they just figured nobody would bother getting married just so they could get on a ballot with a different name.
I assume because marriage requires a lot of documentation and an official process, whereas my name change only required my friends to sign a document I made.
Your name change, which took place in an entirely different country than where this all occurred… and you assume it was the same process, then you get mouthy with the guy who corrected you…
You sure you’re from the UK? You sound more like an American twat.
Yes, mine, which I was very clear about. I said “I assume”, which seemed like a nice and fair enough caveat. The guy who “corrected” my experience? Yeah okay. Said “No, you’re wrong” to my own experience is just being a knob.
In most US states you need to have a decree of name change notarized by the county clerk, or issued by a family court if. Not that hard to do, but a lot more formal and government-involved than the UK process.
You missed the part were I said “my name change”. I have no idea about Ohio, and you didn’t seek to give clarification, you just responded like a prick.
I would guess it is for establishing that you meet residency requirements to be eligible to run for office and don’t have a criminal history that would disqualify you.
Just curious. Why make an exception for marriage? If the intention is so people can identify you if they recently knew you by your previous name, that seems even more pertinent.
Religious BS, probably. Marriage is religious in origin.
Not religious in origin, but the people who propose using it as exclusions to laws think so.
Nah pair mating happens in other species. Religion just got its claws into it at some point.
Meh. True monogamy is quite rare in mammals.
Used to think monogamy was very common in birds, but IRC thanks to DNA testing, we now know plenty of baby birds have a different daddy. Ie. they raise the baby together, but they have an open relationship and impregnate/get impregnated by other birds.
Apparently that’s surprisingly rare in humans.
Less that they “have an open relationship” and more that the birds sneak around behind each-other’s backs. Males go off and try to sneakily impregnate other females, females sneak around and try to get impregnated by other males. You find it in apes too.
Isn’t this anthropomorphizing, though? Is there evidence that the mates would experience emotional distress if they learned their partners were “cheating” on them?
Being in a consensually monogamous relationship, I know I would and my husband would, but how much of that is cultural? I’m not really convinced it’s something that’s ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, though if you have a source about this that discredits my (admittedly amateurish) hypothesis, I’d be open to learning more.
Sure, but saying “have an open relationship” is also anthropomorphizing. Also, sneaking around describes what happens much better. I don’t know what it looks like with birds, but with apes when a non-dominant male mates with a female, they have to sneak around to do it. If the dominant male catches the non-dominant male he’ll attack him.
Here’s an example from monkeys:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/monkeys-try-to-hide-illicit-hookups
I haven’t found articles about chimps and gorillas, but I remember it being similar.
Huh today I learned something interesting! Thanks for the link.
Marriage and monogamous pairs are different though. You can have one without the other.
Sure and you can have landownership without paperwork. Pretty confident if you went on a guys farm plot 10k years ago he would make it clear who owned it.
Birds ain’t getting married my dude
No it isn’t. Religion usurped it and claim they invented it but it’s older than that
How much older? And were the origins devoid of religious influence?
I’d be curious about this claim. There’s pair bonding in other species, and other species that are (mostly) monogamous, but an explicit formal declaration of a monogamous pairing is something that doesn’t happen until you have some kind of culture and by the time we have any kinds of surviving records (even mostly coherent oral traditions) of anything religion already has it claws in a lot of things.
The answer is that there shouldn’t be. And a woman changing her name to match her husband’s is archaic patriarchal bullshit. I’m glad my wife decided not to do that.
Mine did, but that’s mostly because she didn’t change it back after the divorce from her ex was finalized because she figured we were headed in that general direction and it would save her some paperwork.
I made a point of telling her it was up to her, and that things like both of us hyphenating her maiden name and my name were on the table if she wanted, but she wanted to take my name and I’m fine with that.
I figured the odds are that it started as patriarchal bullshit in the most literal sense. Less claiming ownership of the woman like you are thinking and more claiming ownership of the children.
But I suspect that a lot of cultural institutions that are considered patriarchal bullshit had their origins in trying to square the circle of wanting men to be materially responsible for their offspring and also paternity being non-certain with no obvious solution using bronze age technology. So you legally and culturally tie man and woman together, make any of their offspring legally his and bear his name, and leave it to him to make sure no other man is fathering children with her.
Compare to groups like the Mosuo where there are no permanent pair bonds, but also men aren’t materially responsible for their offspring or raising them - children belong to their mother’s family, only. Women are still supposed to know who fathered their children, but I suspect you’ll never get away from that as a norm just to avoid half siblings breeding.
I’m just spit-balling here, but I assume the reason for requiring someone to disclose a recent name change is so that you don’t have someone trying to run under a new name for reasons of deception. “What’s that? Oh no, it’s okay, I know that Donald Trump can’t be on the ballot, but my name is Ronald Krump. Common mistake.”
In most jurisdictions you can legally change your name when you get married without paying a fee or filing any other paperwork (don’t ask me if that applies to men, that’s a whole other archaic bit of bullshit). It’s therefore also the most common reason for someone to change their name, and I guess they just figured nobody would bother getting married just so they could get on a ballot with a different name.
Jorge Santos about to run for the House for the first time in 2024.
I assume because marriage requires a lot of documentation and an official process, whereas my name change only required my friends to sign a document I made.
Marriage requires a license and an officiant. Name change often requires a hearing and publication in a newspaper. So, no, you’re wrong.
“my name change only…” Did you miss that part?
Here is what I did: https://www.gov.uk/change-name-deed-poll/make-an-adult-deed-poll
So, no, you’re wrong.
I think UK and US system might be different.
Likely so.
Do you think Ohio is in the UK?
Did I say it was? I said “I assume”, and “my name change”, not hard to read one sentence.
Your name change, which took place in an entirely different country than where this all occurred… and you assume it was the same process, then you get mouthy with the guy who corrected you…
You sure you’re from the UK? You sound more like an American twat.
Yes, mine, which I was very clear about. I said “I assume”, which seemed like a nice and fair enough caveat. The guy who “corrected” my experience? Yeah okay. Said “No, you’re wrong” to my own experience is just being a knob.
I really don’t care what you think.
In most US states you need to have a decree of name change notarized by the county clerk, or issued by a family court if. Not that hard to do, but a lot more formal and government-involved than the UK process.
Good to know, cheers.
Yeah you missed the part about this being in Ohio
You missed the part were I said “my name change”. I have no idea about Ohio, and you didn’t seek to give clarification, you just responded like a prick.
Lol yeah, I’m the prick here.
I would guess it is for establishing that you meet residency requirements to be eligible to run for office and don’t have a criminal history that would disqualify you.
Because it has nothing to do with that. If the goal was to inform the public there would not be an easy escape clause
It could be clerical. Changing your last name due to marriage is a different process than changing your full name.
They probably wouldn’t make an exception for marriage actually
It’s mentioned in the comment section here that they do.
You can find a name change on the marriage license. So perhaps you look up the name of the person on the marriage license and find the previous name.
deleted by creator