last name debate in quebec

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

I'm tired of talking to you. See you in another thread.

Digiteyes Digiteyes's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]So how does that contradict what I've said? Caroline Parent's name doesn't fall into any of those three categories (nor does mine), so she has no right to change her name (nor do I). *At all*. No matter what forms we're willing to fill out, people we're willing to notify, obligations we're willing to accept under the new name, or fees we're willing to pay. It's just not allowed.[/b]

It's (a), Stephen. If a woman chooses to be known as [firstname] [husband's lastname] she can petition for a name change. There's nothing that says how long it has to have been fact. She could petition for the change the day after her marriage. Heck, it probably takes a whole lot longer than that to process all thd different forms etc. that she'll have to do (which people still have to do in other provinces -- taxes, SIN, credit cards, RRSP and bank accounts, etc.) It's just a name change like anyone else would do.

1234567

All i know is that I have been trying to trace both sides of my family's history. God, it would have been a nightmare if my ancestors had chosen their own names. A name is a name is a name. I kept my maiden name only because it irks me that I can no longer find old school friends because they married and took their husband's name.

In my humble opinion, all children should have their mother's last name, after all you always know who the mother is....

MegB

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]...the only reason for my intervention was to explain that the Quйbec law was progressive, pro-woman, and a step out of the dark ages of pre-Quiet Revolution. I was surprised at the opening post which seemed to paint the law as removing choice from women, where in fact the obvious intent was to say: "When you get married, the government will no long treat you as inferior to men - you keep your name unless you choose to change it."[/b]

Quebec being what it was in the bad old days of Duplessis, I can see the progressive intent of the law, but I don't think an individual's choices are supported or diversified by the act of removing them. These kinds of things are just so ... reactionary. And patronizing. I mean, what is the law doing? It's seeking to change attitude by legislating behaviour.

I've watched a number of very progressively-minded groups and individuals attempt to address inequality in this particular way over the years, and more often than not it backfires.

It seems to be a sad fact that so many who are driven to lobby for social reform through progressive legislation are control freaks. They may be the most forward-thinking of individuals, but like their arch-conservative rivals, they don't trust the average person to make sensible and appropriate choices (ie., the same choices they would make).

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Rebecca West:
[b]Quebec being what it was in the bad old days of Duplessis, I can see the progressive intent of the law, but I don't think an individual's choices are supported or diversified by the act of removing them. These kinds of things are just so ... reactionary. And patronizing. I mean, what is the law doing? It's seeking to change attitude by legislating behaviour. [/b]

We legislate behaviour all the time, long before attitudes have changed. We ban harassment and discrimination in employment, public services, etc., based on prohibited grounds. We have labour laws which legislate behaviour on the part of employers which reflects the actual attitudes of very few employers. We ban crimes long before the social and economic foundation of crime has been remedied.

In the case of Quйbec, I gave you examples of the horrific and antiquated behaviour of the state - actually, social attitudes were by then (1970s) way in advance of the law. The law has been playing catch-up.

In Quйbec today, it is universally accepted - except perhaps by some seniors who have had a hard time adjusting - that married spouses have different surnames. It's not some grudging act with one eye over the shoulder to ensure the cops aren't around! It is reality, and there is no move - zero - in society to go backwards on this point.

quote:

[b]I've watched a number of very progressively-minded groups and individuals attempt to address inequality in this particular way over the years, and more often than not it backfires.[/b]

Maybe, but what do you think about human rights legislation? Has it backfired? Sure, there are difficulties in implementation, but who would seriously propose that we repeal the legislation until social attitudes have unanimously "caught up"?

quote:

[b]It seems to be a sad fact that so many who are driven to lobby for social reform through progressive legislation are control freaks. They may be the most forward-thinking of individuals, but like their arch-conservative rivals, they don't trust the average person to make sensible and appropriate choices (ie., the same choices they would make).[/b]

That seems like a rather breath-taking generalization. Workers and unions lobbied for decades for legislated minimum wage, the 40-hour week, vacations, the right to refuse unsafe work, mandatory recognition of unions once a majority of workers had made their choice, etc. etc. etc. I for one do not trust anyone to "make sensible and appropriate choices" in this realm, nor in the realm of discrimination in employment, in housing, in commerce, in society as a whole.

For example, it's ridiculous enough that religious clergy are allowed to choose whether to perform same-sex marriages or not. Would you have preferred that the law had allowed [b]all[/b] civil authorities, courts, etc., to choose whether they wanted to perform such marriages? Would you have trusted them to "make sensible and appropriate choices"?

When society moves forward, it signals that advance by inscribing it in law. And I hail the "control freaks" who fought, lobbied and sacrificed for such laws.

hatman

I like what the mayor of LA and his wife did when they got married. His last name was Villar and he married a Raigosa, and now their last name is "Villaraigosa".

However, that can get a bit impractical.
My solution is as follows.

When two people marry, they hyphenate their name, and their children will also get their name. When the sons marry, they drop their mother's name and adopt their wife's name while their daughter's drop their father's name and get their husband's name.

Free_Radical

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]We legislate behaviour all the time, long before attitudes have changed. We ban harassment and discrimination in employment, public services, etc., based on prohibited grounds. We have labour laws which legislate behaviour on the part of employers which reflects the actual attitudes of very few employers. We ban crimes long before the social and economic foundation of crime has been remedied.[/b]

[i]Actually[/i], we legislate against acts like harassment and discrimination because people have a right to be protected from the very real harm that these can cause.

The question then is, what harm are people being protected from when they are prevented from voluntarily choosing their name?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Free_Radical:
[b]
[i]Actually[/i], we legislate against acts like harassment and discrimination because people have a right to be protected from the very real harm that these can cause.

The question then is, what harm are people being protected from when they are prevented from voluntarily choosing their name?[/b]


The same harm as when workers "voluntarily" work for less than minimum wage.

Or women "voluntarily" "accept" a salary less than men for performing the same work.

Or a young person "voluntarily" marrying someone of the same religion that the parents approve of.

Or employees "voluntarily" signing an application for employment that states: "I hereby waive my right to join a union so long as I remain employed in this position."

Or a restaurant owner, with lots of competitors on the same block, asking all customers to sign a statement before entering saying, "I am choosing voluntarily to eat here in full knowledge that I may be subject to second-hand smoke."

When you can prove to me that social pressures have disappeared whereby women should celebrate their union by abandoning their name and adopting that of "hubby", then perhaps the need for a law protecting a woman's dignity and identity will disappear.

All I can say is that in Quйbec society, that day may be coming soon (because, as I mentioned, the new generation has virtually forgotten that women once had to sacrifice their names). It's people like Ms. Parent and her rationale that give me pause.

Free_Radical

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]The same harm as when workers "voluntarily" work for less than minimum wage.[/b]

That harms the worker, so we legislate against it.

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Or a restaurant owner, with lots of competitors on the same block, asking all customers to sign a statement before entering saying, "I am choosing voluntarily to eat here in full knowledge that I may be subject to second-hand smoke."[/b]

In most jurisdictions we legislate against this because of the very real harm caused by second-hand smoke.

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]When you can prove to me that social pressures have disappeared whereby women should celebrate their union by abandoning their name and adopting that of "hubby", then perhaps the need for a law protecting a woman's dignity and identity will disappear.[/b]

Would you support a legislation against parents dressing their daughters in pink, or giving them dolls to play with?

When we proscribe someone's freedom of action, we should have very good reason to do so.

Generally progressives oppose such "morality" laws - such as restricting a woman's right to reproductive choice (since it affects nobody other than themselves), or a person's right to live-with and marry whomever they wish (again, affecting nobody but those involved).

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by 1234567:
[b]In my humble opinion, all children should have their mother's last name, after all you always know who the mother is....[/b]

This would be the ideal situation and would not require anyone to ever change their names.

ouroboros

quote:


Originally posted by hatman:
[b]When two people marry, they hyphenate their name, and their children will also get their name. When the sons marry, they drop their mother's name and adopt their wife's name while their daughter's drop their father's name and get their husband's name.[/b]

My partner has a hyphenated last name. She has tons of trouble with people and her last name. When someone asks her what last name is, she starts with "My last name is really big and you'll need more space" and it always takes at least two tries. Lately she just gives them her drivers license or gives them my last name.

Granted her both names in her last name are kind of long and uncommon but I wouldn't wish a hyphenated name on any one. Her line is that parents that give their kids hyphenated last names must hate them, or not know the trouble they are. She's looking forward to changing her last name when we get married.

I don't mind the idea of making up a last name when you get married. I think people could think up some pretty neat last names.

Sven Sven's picture

This whole debate about what people “should” or “must” do with their names strikes me as unnecessary government meddling. How about simply letting people have whatever name they want? They can hyphenate their name, use a husband’s name, use a wife’s name, use their partner’s name, make up a new name, or whatever. If I want to change my name to “Gern Blanston” because I like how is sounds, why the fuck should anyone else care, number one, and if they do care, what the fuck business is it of theirs?

Unionist

Not long ago, almost all women took their husband's name on marriage.

You think this was a "choice"?

Way too many still do.

You think this is a sign of women's right to choose?

How many men do you know who took their spouse's surname on marriage?

Zero?

Why is that - because men don't realize they have the "right" to change their name?

I find this discussion extremely hard to believe. But the more it evolves, the more convinced I am of the need for the 1981 Quйbec law. If anyone was unclear about its ongoing importance, just read this thread.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I find this discussion extremely hard to believe. But the more it evolves, the more convinced I am of the need for the 1981 Quйbec law. If anyone was unclear about its ongoing importance, just read this thread.[/b]

Maybe the next “logical” step Quebec could take would be to make it illegal to have a gender-specific first name. “Mary” would be verboten as would “James”. “Kelly” would be okay and so would “Terry”. And, this would be done, of course, in the best interest of the people too stupid to understand the importance of this issue.

Better yet?

Assign everyone a number for a name (but you would have to take steps to scrupulously avoid giving the odd numbers just to boys and even numbers just to girls—perhaps a random number generator would do the trick?).

Personally, I would like to be called 3.142857143, which would, of course, just be a nickname for my real name of 22/7.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

Maybe the next “logical” step Quebec could take would be to make it illegal to have a gender-specific first name. [/b]


What really gets me about some of the posts here is the notion that Quйbec women had a "right" prior to 1981 - the "right" to take their husbands' name - and that "right" has now been abolished.

It's amazing how steps toward liberty and equality can be made to look, by cynics, like the opposite.

Free_Radical

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]What really gets me about some of the posts here is the notion that Quйbec women had a "right" prior to 1981 - the "right" to take their husbands' name - and that "right" has now been abolished.[/b]

In the end, people had a real right to choose which name they took.

Is it a [i]good[/i] thing that most women ultimately "chose" their husband's name? No, because for most of those there was no choice involved - we all know that.

For some, however, it was a genuine choice that they freely made - but today can't. Others in the past, men and women, may have made a choice to adopt any kind of name they preferred - and are also barred from doing that today.

In the interest of "protecting" some women from taking their husband's names, the government has stepped in and restricted the degree of choice that people are able to wield over their lives.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Free_Radical:
[b]For some, however, it was a genuine choice that they freely made - but today can't.[/b]

How many men do you know who have taken their wife's surname? Or was this "free choice" only exercised by women?

Please reply.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]What really gets me about some of the posts here is the notion that Quйbec women had a "right" prior to 1981 - the "right" to take their husbands' name - and that "right" has now been abolished.[/b]

Was a woman, prior to 1981, [b][i]required[/b][/i] to adopt their husband’s last name upon marriage? If so, then the simple, and appropriate, remedy would have been to pass a law abolishing that requirement.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

Was a woman, prior to 1981, [b][i]required[/b][/i] to adopt their husband’s last name upon marriage? If so, then the simple, and appropriate, remedy would have been to pass a law abolishing that requirement.[/b]


You really don't understand the immense social, religious, traditional pressures to change one's name on marriage - really, really? Or is this just some intellectual debate?

ETA: Sven, how many men do you know who have taken their spouse's name on marriage?

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]How many men do you know who have taken their wife's surname? Or was this "free choice" only exercised by women?

Please reply.[/b]


Venturing away from the issue of last names, I suppose that another “logical” step that Quebec could take would be to require men—randomly selected, of course—to stay at home with children, should the parents wish to have any parent stay at home, in order to ensure that there is a 50-50 split of moms and dads staying home with kids.

Right now, 99% of parents who choose to have one of the parents stay at home with children “choose” the mother to do so, no?

I actually think this is a serious issue, because the practice of moms, and not dads, staying at home contributes to gender pay inequality.

But, do you [b][i]legislate[/b][/i] that, for gosh sakes?

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]how many men do you know who have taken their spouse's name on marriage?[/b]

If it matters: two. One had an almost unpronounceable name that he was happy to be rid of. The other was a very intelligent and deferential man whose wife had an ancestral name highly respected in this area; he said he was honoured that she allowed him to take it.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]
Right now, 99% of parents who choose to have one of the parents stay at home with children “choose” the mother to do so, no?[/b]

Your 99% is a bit wild, but your point is well taken. No one should have to "stay at home with children" if they don't want to. Nor should they have to "stay at home" to cook or clean. That's why civilized society addresses this problem very seriously, by tearing down barriers to women in the workforce (such as discrimination, inequality of pay, etc.); enacting cheap or free public child care (as in Quйbec, which has made a good start); providing access to skills and job training; changing school curricula to combat antiquated and hierarchical role models; introducing employment equity legislation to help achieve a balance in the workplace more reflective of society; etc.

We have lots to do before we have to force anyone to "stay at home". The very notion that anyone needs to "stay at home" speaks volumes about your example.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]
Right now, 99% of parents who choose to have one of the parents stay at home with children “choose” the mother to do so, no?
[/b]

Could you post a link please. According to our government that was not the case in 2003.

quote:

In 2001, single-parent mothers accounted for 85 percent of all single-parent families in Canada and over 90 percent of all poor single-parent families (NCW 2001: 14).


[url=http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/0662450870/200703_9780662450870_10_... on Single Parent Famlies WARNING THEY MAY DEPRESS PROGRESIVE PEOPLE[/url]

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]
If it matters: two. One had an almost unpronounceable name that he was happy to be rid of. The other was a very intelligent and deferential man whose wife had an ancestral name highly respected in this area; he said he was honoured that she allowed him to take it.[/b]

Thanks, Wilf, and yes it very much does matter. It means that in a province where people are free to take the other spouse's name, far fewer than 1% of those who exercise that "freedom" are men. I think that reflects a model where the male is the leader of the household.

I could be wrong, though - it could just be a totally random coincidence, based on people's free unconstrained individual choices.

By the way, the fact that certain others haven't answered my question yet tells me that their answer is "zero".

Stephen Gordon

Why does it matter? Haven't you figured out that some people will, sadly, make choices that you wouldn't? Get over it.

BTW, where do you stand on the idea of outlawing the hijab?

[ 16 August 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]We have lots to do before we have to force anyone to "stay at home". The very notion that anyone needs to "stay at home" speaks volumes about your example.[/b]

I’m not talking about “needing” to stay at home. Rather, I’m thinking of those couples who choose to have a parent stay at home because they believe it’s better for the children (those families do exist—and in large numbers). But, inevitably, the secondary “choice” is that the parents “choose” the mom to be the parent who stays at home. And that secondary choice is strikingly similar to the “choice” about last name selection. In that latter instance, you favor legislating that away. Why wouldn’t you do the same with the “choice” of staying at home, when the adverse financial consequences to those women are (almost) self-evident?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]Why does it matter? Haven't you figured out that some people will, sadly, makes choices that you wouldn't? Get over it.[/b]

I feel as if I've inadvertently walked into to someone else's conversation. Sorry to disturb, carry right on, John Smith.

Sven Sven's picture

kropotkin1951, I'm not talking about single parents. I'm talking about two parents with children and the "choice" that is almost inevitably made that the mom, not the dad, stay at home with the kids in those cases where the parents what one parent to stay at home.

Stephen Gordon

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

I feel as if I've inadvertently walked into to someone else's conversation. Sorry to disturb, carry right on, John Smith.[/b]


:sigh:

Whatever. Carry on, oh He Who Must be Obeyed.

Unionist

Yeah, kropotkin1951, Sven has no explanation for why couples "choose" to leave the mother at home with the kids - "99% of the time" he says - but he will no doubt fight to the finish to defend the democratic right of parents to freely and individually choose to leave the Mom at home.

Interesting to see the usual list of men waxing eloquent about women's right to choose their last name. No one has complained yet that Quйbec males have "lost" their right to take their wives' names!!!! I wonder why!!!!

quote:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (from Anatole France, [i]The Red Lily[/i], 1894).

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]
Whatever. Carry on, oh He Who Must be Obeyed.[/b]

Oh, hi there, it's you - I didn't recognize the name since you changed it back.

Have you had a chance to review Section 58 of the Code Civil yet? I know you were having some trouble with it earlier.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Thanks, Wilf, and yes it very much does matter. It means that in a province where people are free to take the other spouse's name, far fewer than 1% of those who exercise that "freedom" are men. I think that reflects a model where the male is the leader of the household.

I could be wrong, though - it could just be a totally random coincidence, based on people's free unconstrained individual choices.[/b]


But do we need to attempt to ham-handedly [b][i]legislate[/b][/i] the problem away?

There are a whole host of other things problematic about “the male is the leader of the household”. Do you [b][i]legislate[/b][/i] how parents interact with their children? I would imagine you would because the way the parents live their lives will certainly impact how their children view the world (i.e., “men should be the leader of the household because that’s how my parents did it”).

Do you [b][i]legislate[/b][/i] away the practice of parents inculcating children with religious values? You and I both agree that religion is a caustic force. Should we try to stop the perpetuation of that force by legislatively preventing parents from teaching religious practices to children (a large percentage of whom will adopt those beliefs for the rest of their lives—and thus perpetuate the negative effects religion causes)?

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Yeah, kropotkin1951, Sven has no explanation for why couples "choose" to leave the mother at home with the kids - "99% of the time" he says - but he will no doubt fight to the finish to defend the democratic right of parents to freely and individually choose to leave the Mom at home.[/b]

And your solution to that particular issue is...what?

1234567

quote:


Was a woman, prior to 1981, required to adopt their husband’s last name upon marriage? If so, then the simple, and appropriate, remedy would have been to pass a law abolishing that requirement.

Women were considered chattel and that's why they had were required to take their husband's last name. Much like slaves all took the names of their owners.

Also in Quebec, didn't they adopt a bunch of Irish children way back and allow them to keep their family names?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]

And your solution to that particular issue is...what?[/b]


You forgot my recent post about child care, skills training, discrimination, equity, equality of role models? Would you like a link back to it?

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]You forgot my recent post about child care, skills training, discrimination, equity, equality of role models? Would you like a link back to it?[/b]

No. I think those things are very helpful for parents who both want to work outside of the home and leave day-to-day care with child care folks.

But, there is a significant number of parents who, even if those services were available, would elect to have a parent stay at home with their children because they believe it is better for their children to do that. And, in those case, the overwhelming majority of parents “choose” to have the mom be the one staying at home.

1234567

quote:


But, there is a significant number of parents who, even if those services were available, would elect to have a parent stay at home with their children because they believe it is better for their children to do that. And, in those case, the overwhelming majority of parents “choose” to have the mom be the one staying at home.

Hmmm. I wouldn't say that it's a choice. I would say that it is expected that the woman stays home.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by 1234567:
[b]

Hmmm. I wouldn't say that it's a choice. I would say that it is expected that the woman stays home.[/b]


Wow - plain common sense. Thank you - and welcome to babble!

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by 1234567:
[b]Hmmm. I wouldn't say that it's a choice. I would say that it is expected that the woman stays home.[/b]

That's why I put "choose" in quotes. The social expectation is that the mom, not the dad, stays at home. The question is: Should that be legislatively prohibited, such as unionist has advocated regarding a woman’s traditional “choice” to choose her husband’s last name.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sven I understand that ypou were taking about couples but I thought that it would be closer to the gender ratio of single parents. So as I suspected you just made the statistic up.

I know that as a seasonal worker in my youth I used to stay at home and look after the house and children and I can say that society definitely wonders about a man that does that. The comments I got from other men were rude and condesending. When you couple the societal expectations with the real fact of gender pay disparity it isn't surprising that most stay at home parents are women.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Should that be legislatively prohibited, such as unionist has advocated regarding a woman’s traditional “choice” to choose her husband’s last name.[/b]

I advocated nothing. A woman's traditional [b]obligation[/b] to dump her name and adopt some man's name has been legally banned in Quйbec for 26 years, at the demand of women's organizations and their allies. Now, a few men on this forum, ignorant of this law for 26 years, are leaping to the "defence" of women's "choice". This is very sad, but oh so unsurprising.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I advocated nothing. A woman's traditional [i]obligation[/i] to dump her name and adopt some man's name has been legally banned in Quйbec for 26 years, at the demand of women's organizations and their allies. Now, a few men on this forum, ignorant of this law for 26 years, are leaping to the "defence" of women's "choice". This is very sad, but oh so unsurprising.[/b]

If feel like I'm walking in circles now. Because earlier this afternoon:

quote:

Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Was a woman, prior to 1981, [i]required[/i] to adopt their husband’s last name upon marriage? If so, then the simple, and appropriate, remedy would have been to pass a law abolishing that requirement.[/b]

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]You really don't understand the immense social, religious, traditional pressures to change one's name on marriage - really, really?[/b]

Unionist

I said "traditional obligation". Any unclarity in that?

hatman

quote:


Originally posted by ouroboros:
[b]

My partner has a hyphenated last name. She has tons of trouble with people and her last name. When someone asks her what last name is, she starts with "My last name is really big and you'll need more space" and it always takes at least two tries. Lately she just gives them her drivers license or gives them my last name.

Granted her both names in her last name are kind of long and uncommon but I wouldn't wish a hyphenated name on any one. Her line is that parents that give their kids hyphenated last names must hate them, or not know the trouble they are. She's looking forward to changing her last name when we get married.

I don't mind the idea of making up a last name when you get married. I think people could think up some pretty neat last names.[/b]


Yea, but if everyone has a hyphenated name, people will be used to it, so the problems you have mentioned wont exist. Families should have the same surnames, but women shouldn't have to be the only gender to change, so I've created a compromise which in an ideal world would work.

Sven Sven's picture

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I said "traditional obligation". Any unclarity in that?[/b]

I'm sorry. I was whupped-tired last night when I posted that!

Actually, what I was trying to reconcile, unionist, were these earlier statements:

1. Prior to 1981, a woman was (traditionally) required to change her name to her husband's name.

2. In 1981, the state passed a law that a woman would retain her last name given at birth. And you have argued that that was necessary in order to combat point 1 above.

3. Yet you cite Section 58 as a means for a person to simply change their legal name to the name they commonly use (i.e., a woman's husband's name if she uses his name socially).

So, doesn't point 3 trump point 2? Or, does point 2 really mean that a womany must keep her given name at marriage and Section 58 cannot be used to "get around" it?

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Sven:
[b]
So, doesn't point 3 trump point 2? Or, does point 2 really mean that a womany must keep her given name at marriage and Section 58 cannot be used to "get around" it?[/b]

Good question. I believe the courts have said you have to use a name for a significant period of time (a number of years) before you can invoke Section 58 to change to it. So, it would not probably be available to a newlywed who was yearning for her bridegroom's last name.

But because it's such a complete non-issue in Quйbec society, which has embraced the new respect for individual dignity, I'm not sure if this particular issue (e.g. applying for name change immediately upon marriage) has ever been tested.

ETA: However, the law does allow the authority to grant a name change for any "serious reason", without limitation, even if it doesn't fall within the stated examples - so presumably a person could plead that case if they wished.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Summer

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]

But because it's such a complete non-issue in Quйbec society, which has embraced the new respect for individual dignity, I'm not sure if this particular issue (e.g. applying for name change immediately upon marriage) has ever been tested.

[/b]


I just spat my juice out. I'm not a morning person, so forgive the question Quebec has "embraced...respect for individual dignity" - sarcastic???

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Summer:
[b]
I just spat my juice out.[/b]

You could use a moist cloth - or, just suck it up.

Sven Sven's picture

I want to slip in one last comment before this thread gets closed for length...

Thanks for the spirited discussion on this topic, unionist.

mgregus

On that note, I'm closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked