That's how MAGA does marriage, usually

[Sweet Home Alabama intensifies]

Roll tide

Found the Kentuckian

I get the joke, but is it really so rare in the US for a woman to keep her own surname after marriage?

If convicted felons can be president, they should be allowed to vote too.

Death by a thousand cuts. Each issue by itself might evoke a shrug, but put it all together, a very clear picture emerges.

BTW (and I'm sure you know) this has been going on for waaaay longer than MAGA. Arguably since the USA's independence. Every conservative president seems to have added a little bit. The system is near completely eroded.

Depends on the immigrants, sadly.

As a non white lol why can’t I vote? I’m a legal citizen I will have no issue. I would like to know what rights the whites have over me?

while i get the joke, i just want to make sure it's clear to anyone coming across this understnds that women who elect to change their name in the merital tradition of erasure are more likely to be conservative, and the women who have the documents to prove their identity (like a passport) are more likely to be progressive.

all that said, the focus on how this will impact women, specifically, is frustrating because it's ignoring the biggest groups of people who will be impacted: immigrants and working poor people. we shouldn't tolerate the disenfranchisement of ~30% of women, so we are clear, but we are positioned to disenfranchise ~80% of immigrants and working poor and no one is talking about it. these are people who are less likely to have ANY of the acceptable documents proposed in the SAVE act.

for context, people experiencing poverty are far less likely to be born in a hospital and have a birth certificate, usually depending on a baptism certificate to establish their government name. meanwhile, immigrants may have a passport, but if it's expired that's unacceptable, and a lot of the nations around the world that issued the birth certificates being required by this law in place of a passport can no longer certify birth certificates simply because they aren't existing anymore. i have multiple friends who can't get their birth certificates right now because that would put them at risk of government retribution because they are asylum seekers. for example, my siberian neighbor isn't going to be getting in touch with the Russian government any time soon.

so in conclusion. the aim is to disenfranchise women and minorities. the majority of the women disenfranchised will be conservative. however, the majority of people disenfranchised will be progressive.

and that's no accident.

Or it will disqualify a lot of married women who took their partner's name

Unmarried women and women who keep their last name will have less trouble voting... and people whose names differ and are aware of the change, are more likely to go through the bullshit to make sure they're registered. Maybe it'll prevent a bunch of Magats from being able to vote

It's utterly disgusting either way. Hope it backfires, they lose, and they're persecuted. A kid can dream

Yes but who is going to be enforcing this? Where specifically are they going to be enforcing this?

Because it ain't gonna be Bumfuck, Alabama who has gone red since the Civil War.

If I'm understanding this correctly, passports are also a valid form of citizenship. Passports are usually held by people who lean left, so this could be another advantage the left has in this insane proposition.

I hope passports will remain good enough. I was born to irresponsible teenagers and was legally adopted by one parent, and none of them gave me a copy of my birth certificate. I'm starting to worry that it would be worth tracking it down so I'll have a copy just in case.

This is all so insane, getting our papers in order in case we need to show them to avoid getting disappeared.

It's proof of citizenship. But also, here it's a convenient and plausibly deniable way to disenfranchise people who vote differently than them.

Here is a list of allowed document for a similar problem, for employment. Note that it categorizes the possibilities as ID, citizenship, and work authorization, and you may need one each from multiple groups. For example you might use a drivers license as ID and a certified birth certificate as proof of citizenship

• https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-acceptable-documents

It’s not quite the same since this allows identifying as from another country and with a valid work authorization, which do not apply to voting, but very similar

Obviously I’m not saying this is appropriate to mandate for voting but if we were, this is a well thought out answer to that sort of question.

It doesn’t address the voter suppression concern though

Long form or short form? Lol

Betting on me losing my rights is wild.

TBF the betting platforms had higher accuracy than aggregate polls in 2024.

(☞ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)☞

Do the Republicans really think

Not usually

See, the thing Jim Crow and its "literacy tests" taught us is that you just need a rule that you can enforce on the wrong people, and then you just choose not to enforce it when it's convenient.

So your local lesbian coven of naturalized middle aged Latinas.

Just want to emphasize this hilarious line for anyone who doesn’t feel like reading the entire post. Please carry on.

Basic rights with exceptions are like ads saying "Up to 20% off!*"

The fine print makes it a farce.

Voting as a man when you’re not? Jail time for you.

and Patriarchy

Our elections take place inside the state where we reside. We have state ID with a picture and the voting rolls match our address. It’s a pretty simple process that has worked for the last 40 years or so. I’ve always had to provide proof ID and residence to vote

Right? Imagine claiming to be the greatest country on earth and then not even have a national ID, something I bet even every third world country has lol. The US is such a circus lol.

Next they'll exclude anyone whose current hair color doesn't match their official one.

How isn't showing your passport sufficient evidence to tell you are who you tell you are?

It also takes weeks or months to get official documents in order.

It doesn't even matter. If only men vote then Republicans win. Women add more votes to Democrats. Removing them from the picture for voting simply helps Republicans.

A lot of states have been banning name changes for trans people, I think this was a dumb attack on trans people.

When my wife and I married she only took my last name because her father abandoned her when she was 6 months old, and she wanted to erase that from her identity.

Marginally yes they are, but it's still more common in my experience that the woman changes their name more often than not.

It's a bit of paperwork, but it does make things easier when you have the same last name. Until president asshat decided to disenfranchise people.

I'd say the important statistic is that more conservative women get married overall

"My husband votes conservative for the both of us. A woman's place is serving God and her husband, not having a right to an opinion."

-Conservative women, probably

Calling it now.

Vote-by-mail ballots disregarded.

And ICE at every poll in every blue city around the country.

When you're married, you give up your voting privileges. Your husband will vote for you. Oh, he only gets one vote of course.

Also, if you're not married, you've clearly shown that you're not mature enough to vote. A public servant will be designated to vote on your behalf.

This is the intent of the bill as it is written. These bigots were so excited about denying rights to trans people that they didn’t even consider that it might disenfranchise cis women.

Though for these crusty old cunts, that’s just a bonus!

Wouldn't that also hurt all kinds oft people who changed their name for other reasons? Like people who had a Tragedeigh name or artists who took on a different name.

They can use it as an excuse to remove voting entirely ; that is the aim.

It may stop them from voting depending on the requirements surrounding the birth certificate. The format of certain features or seals are not consistent across the US. Local laws in one place may require something which is not done in the place a person was born. My mother deals with that frequently and I had some issues with that previously. Even of she purchased a replacement birth certificate it would still follow the "wrong" format.

Basically it changes the types of id that are accepted at voting booths.

When you vote you already have to have registered with appropriate ID to be counted federally. When you show up at the poll this act will change so that only federally issued ID types will be valid. Birth certificates are the most common but if your current name is different than what you were born with for any reason it won't count.

Of these federal id types most of them are opt in varieties and as such are actually more expensive types of specific ID like passports and "REAL ID". A regular old drivers licence as issued by your state won't be good enough anymore even though your name and listed address were verified by the state and already match the name on the voter registration.

Since these id types are more expensive it can make voting the preserve of those who can afford the time and extra money making it a way to disenfranchise economically disadvantaged voters of all stripes .

Proof of citizenship is already required to register, bringing proof to the voting booth is the extra hurdle this act brings.

You can change your name with the IRS SSA. That should be more than sufficient proof.

Watch them try to tie it to the 15th or some dumb bullshit.

Hell, they just need it in place long enough to bork a single election, right? All it takes is a slow judicial and they can achieve the goal.

I suspect its more about creating extra paperwork hurdles to voting. More paperwork means it takes more time investment to be able to vote at all, thereby disenfranchising voters with less free time and Republicans have already done the math on that and enacted voter ID laws in many states because the math works out for them

Or else what

They want all conservative women to change back to their maiden name apparently lol.

Can't speak for the entirety of the West ofc but here in the UK It's traditionally the norm that the woman takes the man's surname; but it's definitely become less common in the last 50 years or so.

It's not uncommon to see double-barrelled names; which are both surnames added together (IE: Mr Smith marrying Miss Jones could become the Smith-Jones') or as you say, retaining their family surname post marriage.

Same sex tend to go down the double barrel or retention routes from what I've experienced. I've met same sex couples where one elected to take the others name, but I'd be surprised if it was the most popular option in SSM, primarily because of where I believe this tradition stems from.

My theory is that the less theocratical a country is, the less prominent this situation is. Religion eh. Helluva drug.

Not the same in all western countries. Afaik it was tradition in most countries for the wife to take the husband's surname, except in Italy and Spain. Regular people also often didn't have surnames, instead they were "son of ..." or named after their or their parents' occupation. Edit with more musings: surnames could also be their place of birth, their farm, ... Names which would then get made hereditary in the early 19th century, but many people still kept using the old changing forms for generations longer. During his life, my great grandfather wasn't known by his official surname in his village, only the state called him that.

In the last few decades, most western countries (afaik again) are allowing the woman to chose if see wants to change her surname or not. Or to use both surnames. They also allow the man to change his name to that of his wife. Equality.

And that recent development is also why it's not a problem for same sex marriage. Back when the wife had to take the husband's name, same sex marriage wasn't allowed so there was no naming problem. Countries that allow official same sex marriages are typically also countries that will already have equality for surnames.

It isn't the same in all Western countries. For example, it was not a tradition in Portugal for a woman to adopt her husband's surname, but during Salazar's dictatorship, the custom was implemented, inspired by other European countries that had this tradition, such as England and Germany. Here it was customary for people to have the last four surnames of their grandparents, first from the mother's side, then the father's.

Nowadays, the minimum number of surnames in Portugal is two, one from the mother and one from the father and without a specific order. Both men and women can adopt their partner's surname after marriage. However, many people choose not to adopt another surname.

the west is supposed to be more progressive in most areas

All scepticism of that claim aside, I'm not sure it has something to do with progressiveness, strictly speaking. It's a historical artifact, to be sure, but as far as I know, the laws and expectations on this have softened somewhat. My wife and I each kept ours, for instance, and nobody bats an eye.

It's a thing many people do anyway, because sharing a family name makes it more obvious that, well, you're a family, but even for that, there are alternatives that (in my social environment at least) are just as acceptable. My boss took his wife's, for instance. Double-names have been common for a long time now (several of my older teachers had them) and German law also allows you to come up with a new family name (even later on, doesn't have to be right when you get married).

The fact that it tends to be the man's name in hetero marriages is a relic of a society that thought of marriages as the women coming into the men's household, long before family names became a thing (as the other reply mentions). Whatever the origin of it, that patriarchal model no longer has any grounding in modern family patterns and no reason to keep existing.

However, a habit doesn't strictly have to be good or bad. In the case of names, their value depends in what they symbolise. In this case, it used to (and unfortunately in many places still does) represent that power dynamic of the man as head of the household. And it's that dynamic that would be the target of progressive efforts to break it up.

I won't say it's gone entirely, because it isn't, and there are plenty of places where it hasn't diminished much, if at all. But in some places, it has softened, and that is reflected in the way we treat family names: You're no longer required nor strongly expected to use the man's, and even if you do, that doesn't mean the woman has to be subordinate.

As a historical relic, the habit isn't progressive by definition, but if there is neither obligation nor implication of male dominant, it also isn't anti-progressive. It just is a thing people commonly do (but don't have to).

Of course, if it were used to selectively disenfranchise some voter demographics, that would give it a new and very much regressive meaning. In that case, the habit would be a bad thing again. I hope it doesn't come to that.

In the US, it was a tradition. If it was a law at some point I never heard about it so probably way back. I’m pretty sure my aunt didn’t change her name with her first marriage and that would have been over 50 years ago.

There were always exceptions to that tradition and they are becoming common. Of the same sex marriages I know, they each kept their name.

Of the different sex marriages among my friends, all but two changed their name but I’m an older generation from many people here. I expect my kids generation to have very different results: we’ll see in a few more years

You'd better not change your last name at all when you marry.