January 7, 2007 (Sacramento Bee) - Groom alleges bias on identity

Groom alleges bias on identity

Suit says man was blocked from taking his bride's last name.

Thursday, January 7, 2007,
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A4
By Jim Sanders, Bee Capitol Bureau

All Michael Buday wanted to do was marry Diana Bijon and live happily ever after, with one tiny twist: He agreed to take her last name.

Quickly, the couple were plunged into what they describe as a bureaucratic inequity that has sparked both a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and new legislation to alter marriage licenses.

Buday said California discriminates by making it easy for women to take their husband's name upon marriage, but not vice versa.

"We think there is no justification for the man to be treated any differently," said Vivek Malhotra, ACLU lobbyist.

Disparate treatment stems from a long-standing belief that a "proper man" doesn't take his wife's last name, the couple's lawsuit claims.

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, said she recognizes that times are changing and that government should, too.

Ma's measure, Assembly Bill 102, would provide a space on the marriage license for either spouse to change their last name.

"It's really gender equality in terms of marriage," she said.

The state Department of Health Services denies that the current process for changing one's name after marriage discriminates against men.

"We believe the allegations against the department are wrong," said Mike Bowman, DHS spokesman. "There is no basis for that lawsuit."

California law does not mandate that changing a woman's name after marriage be simpler, faster or cheaper than for men.

Buday's lawsuit against the state focuses not on statutory language, but on how marriage applications are worded and how state employees respond to a groom's name-changing request without a court order.
Buday said the net effect is that men are treated shabbily.

"No important governmental objectives exist in making this classification between men and women," the suit says. "Rather, the unequal treatment is nothing more than the mechanical application of traditional, inaccurate assumptions about the proper roles of men and women."

Buday, 29, and Bijon, 28, were married Aug. 20, 2005, on the cliffs of Santa Barbara. He was a senior technical manager at an advertising firm; she was an emergency room nurse in Los Angeles.

Buday decided to take his wife's last name "because Diana's father was the first real father figure in Michael's life," the suit says.

Their complaint, filed Dec. 15 in a Los Angeles federal court, says:

Los Angeles County's marriage application provides a space for the bride to enter her married name, but not the groom.
After the wedding, they asked employees at the Beverly Hills courthouse how Buday could change his name. They said he would need a court order, which would require filing a petition, paying a $320 fee, and advertising the proposed name change for four weeks in a local newspaper.
Instead of seeking a court order, Buday presented his marriage license to a Santa Monica branch of the Department of Motor Vehicles in an attempt to change the name on his driver's license. He was not successful. "The representatives laughed and ridiculed him for wanting to take his wife's name," the suit says.

The couple then filed forms with the state Office of Vital Records -- part of the state Department of Health Services -- to have Buday's name changed on their marriage license. They were told no.

"Michael may use the last name of Bijon because he is married to Diana Bijon," the agency replied in a letter to the couple. "However, we cannot change the name on the marriage certificate."

Contrary to the lawsuit's allegations, state officials contend that the name-changing process is identical for both sexes -- and can't be accomplished simply by filing a marriage application.

The two sides differ in their interpretation of wording on Los Angeles County's application.

State officials contend that after a wedding, either the bride or groom can seek a name change by court order or by providing a copy of their marriage license to the DMV.

Mike Miller, a DMV spokesman, pointed to a written policy on the agency's Web site that says people can change the name on their driver's license by presenting a valid marriage certificate. The policy does not distinguish between men and women, he said.

Judah Grossman, of Sacramento, said he had no trouble changing to his wife's last name in 2003 after presenting his marriage certificate to clerks at a San Diego DMV branch and at a federal Social Security office.

"I didn't feel like gender was an issue," he said.

Ma's legislation, if passed, would make name-changing part of the marriage licensing process, thus removing any ambiguities.

Kimberly Salter, president of the California chapter of the National Organization for Women, said she doubted that AB 102 would prompt massive numbers of men to take their wife's last name.

"I don't think it's much ado about nothing," she said of Buday's case. "I think it's an equality issue. I think people should be able to change their name either way, man or woman, and it shouldn't be cost prohibitive."
David Faigman, a specialist in constitutional law at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, said he is not familiar with Buday's case but that the lawsuit raises a legitimate constitutional issue if it can be proved that grooms are treated differently than brides.

"I don't know what the obvious reason would be, other than that it's always been done that way -- and that's not a very good explanation," he said.

###



Groom alleges bias on identity

Suit says man was blocked from taking his bride's last name. Thursday, January 7, 2007, Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A4 By Jim Sanders, Bee Capitol Bureau All Michael Buday wanted to do was marry Diana Bijon and live happily ever after, with one tiny twist: He agreed to take her last name. Quickly, the couple were plunged into what they describe as a bureaucratic inequity that has sparked both a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and new legislation to alter marriage licenses. Buday said California discriminates by making it easy for women to take their husband's name upon marriage, but not vice versa. "We think there is no justification for the man to be treated any differently," said Vivek Malhotra, ACLU lobbyist. Disparate treatment stems from a long-standing belief that a "proper man" doesn't take his wife's last name, the couple's lawsuit claims. Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, said she recognizes that times are changing and that government should, too. Ma's measure, Assembly Bill 102, would provide a space on the marriage license for either spouse to change their last name. "It's really gender equality in terms of marriage," she said. The state Department of Health Services denies that the current process for changing one's name after marriage discriminates against men. "We believe the allegations against the department are wrong," said Mike Bowman, DHS spokesman. "There is no basis for that lawsuit." California law does not mandate that changing a woman's name after marriage be simpler, faster or cheaper than for men. Buday's lawsuit against the state focuses not on statutory language, but on how marriage applications are worded and how state employees respond to a groom's name-changing request without a court order. Buday said the net effect is that men are treated shabbily. "No important governmental objectives exist in making this classification between men and women," the suit says. "Rather, the unequal treatment is nothing more than the mechanical application of traditional, inaccurate assumptions about the proper roles of men and women." Buday, 29, and Bijon, 28, were married Aug. 20, 2005, on the cliffs of Santa Barbara. He was a senior technical manager at an advertising firm; she was an emergency room nurse in Los Angeles. Buday decided to take his wife's last name "because Diana's father was the first real father figure in Michael's life," the suit says. Their complaint, filed Dec. 15 in a Los Angeles federal court, says: Los Angeles County's marriage application provides a space for the bride to enter her married name, but not the groom. After the wedding, they asked employees at the Beverly Hills courthouse how Buday could change his name. They said he would need a court order, which would require filing a petition, paying a $320 fee, and advertising the proposed name change for four weeks in a local newspaper. Instead of seeking a court order, Buday presented his marriage license to a Santa Monica branch of the Department of Motor Vehicles in an attempt to change the name on his driver's license. He was not successful. "The representatives laughed and ridiculed him for wanting to take his wife's name," the suit says. The couple then filed forms with the state Office of Vital Records -- part of the state Department of Health Services -- to have Buday's name changed on their marriage license. They were told no. "Michael may use the last name of Bijon because he is married to Diana Bijon," the agency replied in a letter to the couple. "However, we cannot change the name on the marriage certificate." Contrary to the lawsuit's allegations, state officials contend that the name-changing process is identical for both sexes -- and can't be accomplished simply by filing a marriage application. The two sides differ in their interpretation of wording on Los Angeles County's application. State officials contend that after a wedding, either the bride or groom can seek a name change by court order or by providing a copy of their marriage license to the DMV. Mike Miller, a DMV spokesman, pointed to a written policy on the agency's Web site that says people can change the name on their driver's license by presenting a valid marriage certificate. The policy does not distinguish between men and women, he said. Judah Grossman, of Sacramento, said he had no trouble changing to his wife's last name in 2003 after presenting his marriage certificate to clerks at a San Diego DMV branch and at a federal Social Security office. "I didn't feel like gender was an issue," he said. Ma's legislation, if passed, would make name-changing part of the marriage licensing process, thus removing any ambiguities. Kimberly Salter, president of the California chapter of the National Organization for Women, said she doubted that AB 102 would prompt massive numbers of men to take their wife's last name. "I don't think it's much ado about nothing," she said of Buday's case. "I think it's an equality issue. I think people should be able to change their name either way, man or woman, and it shouldn't be cost prohibitive." David Faigman, a specialist in constitutional law at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, said he is not familiar with Buday's case but that the lawsuit raises a legitimate constitutional issue if it can be proved that grooms are treated differently than brides. "I don't know what the obvious reason would be, other than that it's always been done that way -- and that's not a very good explanation," he said.
###
Copyright © 2007 - The Sacramento Bee