Jose and I can pretty much agree on anything when it comes to planning our wedding; theme, location, decor, food, etc. But when it comes to our last names that's another story. He wants to take my last name, Dyson. I want to take his last name, Batista. He likes my last name, I like his. I don't like my last name and he doesn't like his. I want to be traditional, he was wants to be different. See the problem? Personally, I want to be traditional and take his last name.
I researched if it's legal to do so and in six states, including New York, it is. But in states like California, it's not according to the law. In California, they don't consider it a wedding thing and it won't be on your license. They consider a name a change and in order to change your name, you need to go to court and pay $300. Unlike the woman, where she pays a small fee of $50, it's on the wedding license, and you're all set.
I understand in today's day and age it's considered gender discrimination. Why can't the man take the woman's last name? Why does it have to be the other way around? We don't question the name changing thing, we just do it. It's automatic; we take our husband's last name. But the reason why we do it automatically is because back in the olden days, women were seen as property, hence why women took the man's last name.
Today's totally different and I get it. But like most women, I like tradition. I want a change, a different last name. I'm tired of my name and I don't like my name, Courtney Dyson. It's blah and masculine. I mean, there's a reason why we say "Mr & Mrs. so & so". Mrs. & Mr. so & so doesn't go, doesn't roll of the tongue.
Well, we'll see what happens in 2016 when I get married.