Is there a law that makes a marriage invalid or illegal if either party does not want to change their surname?Then there's no marriage.
Should a wife take your last name when you get hitched? And why?
- Thread starter Jenesis
- Start date
The most common cause is financial strain... when the husband loses his job, the wife wants to bounce.
It might also happen because the couple didn't have an open and honest talk about their finances including their future plans before getting married. It is a tough conversation to have, but you must have it.
I think it should be law that in order to get a marriage license, you need a pre-nup first.
Is there a law to force anyone into marriage? No.
If we can't see eye to eye, then no marriage. If you are passionate about something then you need to be with someone that feels the same way.
I suppose but it's just part of the role that men play in the family as providers (one of the main reasons many women settle with a man in the first place).
That's not what I asked you. As far as I know, there is no law (at least in the US and Canada) that prohibits marriage if either party does not change their surname. I think you can agree that it would be a gross government overreach to insist that.
I do agree with you that if you can't see eye to eye with your SO then you probably shouldn't get married. But it also depends on how flexible you are on those issues.
IMO, not changing the surname does not necessarily show a lack of commitment. There's a raft of other things people can do to show they are committed to each other. The married or guys in a long-term relationship are also showing a lack of commitment to their SO by participating in this industry.
When businesses merge they look at each other's financial records with a fine tooth comb. Marriage or even just living together should be no different. If you can't have the money talk before moving in together it will become more and more difficult down the road.
If you marry a woman who is on her second marriage and she decides to keep her former husband's last name, how would you feel?
I don't know what you are trying to say. Of course there is no law that prohibits that. This isn't a matter of Law.
Now THAT is a good question. I can see wanting a name change there. Even if it is to go back to her maiden name If she doesn’t want to take the second hubby’s name.
In these 8 pages, has anyone mentioned that tradition in England and some other parts of Europe was for the couple to take the name of whichever family was more prominent? Plenty of men adopted the name of their wife's family to build their social credentials. Of course if we go further back, family names weren't a thing except maybe for the elite.
The whole concept under British (and therefore US) Common Law was that women were seen as the property of their father/husband. I heard that's not the case any more.
Rationality would say it's the woman's choice but in the current era, that doesn't have as much influence.
The whole concept under British (and therefore US) Common Law was that women were seen as the property of their father/husband. I heard that's not the case any more.
Rationality would say it's the woman's choice but in the current era, that doesn't have as much influence.
I didn’t know that, no.
I have heard the “property” thing, which if that is still the reason for some men, they need to get with the times.
I have heard “tradition” but again, what tradition and where did it start? What was the purpose? I get no answer
I have heard lacks commitment if she doesn’t, but no on can explain how.
I didn’t know the tradition of taking whichever family name was more prominent. And don’t royals now have no last name?
I was being sarcastic by asking such a question. Just trying to get you think a bit outside the box on this. I know that it's "standard" for people to take the surname, but to say that it shows commitment is not true. I do respect your choice to want your wife to take your name, but you should also respect others that disagree with that choice. Based on your logic, would you not marry a girl that meets all of your criteria except for taking the name? If you have a slew of women banging down your door to get married then it's a much easier choice. Most of us don't have that choice and have to compromise.
It is also totally false that women are given the legal right to financially castrate a man during a separation.
Some people just cannot let go of traditions even if they have no legal basis or practical use. It's also hilarious seeing guys on this board ranting about commitment.
I'd also be fine with it. I would pause for a bit if the surname was Hitler, Mussolini or looked or sounded something like that, but the chance of coming across someone like that is basically zero. It would make a cool story though.
