A Stitch in Haste

With so much litigation about equal protection for gays — and other groups such as immigrants and the handicapped — it is in a sense refreshing to note that good ol' gender-based discrimination is now so rare that stories such as this actually become noteworthy:

Diana Bijon asked her boyfriend if he would take her last name if they got married. ... Buday, unfazed, said yes.
...
On the marriage license application, which now costs $70 to file in L.A. County, Bijon could simply fill in her last name or her soon-to-be husband's last name.

But if Buday wanted to become a Bijon, he would have to get an order of the court to do so — and not before he had filed a petition, paid $320, advertised public notice of his intention to change his name for four weeks in a local newspaper and then appeared before a judge.

Represented by the ACLU, they are now suing to have the discriminatory law struck down.

As a question of constitutional law, this isn't even close: gender-based discrimination is subject to "intermediate-level scrutiny," which means that the discrimination must be "substantially" related to an "important" government interest. See Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), and progeny. Preventing identity fraud might be a legitimate government interest, but is it so "important" to warrant sex discrimination? And how, exactly, does treating one spouse differently than the other relate at all, let alone "substantially," to the interest of preventing fraud? Of course it doesn't relate at all.

The only reasons that brides historically were treated differently from grooms regarding name changes were: (1) tradition, and (2) bias. Since, in less enlightened times, a bride essentially became her husband's property after marriage and forfeited many of her rights, of course it would be she who would assume his name. The subjugation of women was par for the course under "traditional" marriage, so treating them differently during the wedding process was not only uncontroversial but also expected.

But again, those were less enlightened times. Today a gender-biased marriage law such as this is simply stupid — just as stupid as those who insist that the "traditional" marriage of the last 50 years is the same "traditional" marriage of the last 3,000 years.

Society evolves. Marriage evolves. Deal with it.

For Discussion: What is the read-through from this litigation to same-sex partnerships, especially those other than Massachusetts same-sex marriages? Will New Jersey "civil unionized" couples, for example, have to jump through hoops to remind county clerks and other petty government scriveners that they are just as entitled to name changes as married couples? Is "having to work harder for the same rights" the same as "having the same rights"? If not, then is the mandate from the New Jersey Supreme Court being satisfied?

(Via How Appealing.)