• Omega@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

          • Hyperreality@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

      • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        No it isn’t. Religion usurped it and claim they invented it but it’s older than that

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

    • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • ABCDE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It could be clerical. Changing your last name due to marriage is a different process than changing your full name.

    • CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.