# The woman takes her husband's last name - biblical?



## BobVigneault

I took a pretty firm stand at supper last night and really ticked off my 24 year old daughter. I have some good friends, a married couple, and the wife kept her maiden name.

I made the statement that this is a non-negotiable. My argument was that in marriage a man and woman become one flesh and that means there cannot be two names for one flesh - there is ONE name. Furthermore, because the man is the head of the family it is his name that represents the family.

I told her that lots of folks can have novel ideas based on politics and sentiment but my stand has 10,000 years of endorsement and it's non negotiable.

How firm is the ground I'm arguing from? Is there a Biblical argument for the woman taking the man's name? It seems like a no brainer to me but I'd better be sure.


----------



## Kim G

I prefer that the woman takes the man's last name. I was more than happy to take my hubbie's name!

However, having been in South Korea and now teaching ESL students from China and Brazil, I realized that our mindset is highly "western". In Asia, the husband and wife keep their own names, but all children take the name of the father. (It's the same in at least some parts of Brazil.) Even the Christians that I fellowshiped with in Asia do this. It's not considered a violation of the "one flesh" argument or a lack of submission on the wife's part. It's not a "maybe I will, maybe I won't"--it's just not done.

So, in our culture, yes, I prefer name-changing. But I can't make that a hard and fast rule for everyone in every location for all time.


----------



## PaulB

*Clariification Q*

Bob,

Which of the practices are you opposing?

A) Woman keeps maiden name that is to be used in all forms of address & communication with a hyphen as in Hillary Rodham-Clinton
B) Woman keeps maiden name as her "new" middle name that as such is rarely used and referenced.

Thanks,

PaulB


----------



## BobVigneault

No problem with "B" Paul, I would oppose "A" and I would oppose the wife just keeping her maiden name to the exclusion of her husbands which is the case in the marriage of my friends.


----------



## PaulB

BobVigneault said:


> No problem with "B" Paul, I would oppose "A" and I would oppose the wife just keeping her maiden name to the exclusion of her husbands which is the case in the marriage of my friends.



I think I'm on board with you, then. The reason I asked is that a friend of mine refused to allow his wife to keep her maiden name in any fashion whatsoever. He saw that as equivalent to what you are opposing. I do think that taking the husband's last name reinforces the one-fleshment of marriage.


----------



## Seb

It's funny. My wife really struggled with the idea of taking my last name when we got married. 

I can't imagine why? 

But ultimately she knew it was a husband headship / one flesh issue and submitted to it.

Since then she's tried to talk me into changing our last name a couple of times, for the sake of our daughter of course.


----------



## TimV

> I told her that lots of folks can have novel ideas based on politics and sentiment but my stand has 10,000 years of endorsement and it's non negotiable.



I trust that number is hyperbole; I took you as a Genesis means what it says person.

Japanese and other's often take the wife's last name like my White neighbor who's last name is Hiyashi, so I wouldn't argue from that position anyway. My own surname is Welsh, and I believe it wasn't until Henry the Seventh that the Welsh had to take last names.

Like everything (in my poor opinion) at least hints can be found in the Holy Scriptures. In this case, it's pretty much always "so and so the wife of so and so", rather than the reverse, so we can get a hint as to the optimum, i.e. the wife is known publically by the man's name, since that is the Scriptural pattern.

But at the same time, there are other principles involved, one being that while something might be optimum, like not eating pork or road kill or harvesting the corners of your field, where there's no civil or ecclesiastical penalty, the issue is between God and that person, and while we can instruct we can't demand.


----------



## BobVigneault

Ok, so what is the argument from Scripture?


----------



## BobVigneault

10,000 years was not hyperbole, I'm a young earther.


----------



## Seb

BobVigneault said:


> Ok, so what is the argument from Scripture?



I don't think you're going to find one more than the "leave and cleave", one flesh, husband headship verses that you already know.

Surnames are a fairly recent invention: Surname - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## TimV

> 10,000 years was not hyperbole, I'm a young earther



Aside from the fact that surnames have only been around a fifth as long, and even then only in limited areas of the world, what examples could you give of any sort of names 8,000 years ago? After all, you're appealing to tradition.


----------



## TimV

> Since then she's tried to talk me into changing our last name a couple of times, for the sake of our daughter of course.



I take it you give your wife the option of picking the kid's names


----------



## Thomas2007

Bob,

I think you are on the right track. The practice in our culture was developed through English Common Law which is customs derived from Biblical law.

The man is the covenantal head of the family, a woman takes a man's last name because she is transfered from her father's household to her husband.

The modern propensity of rejecting a husbands name, or attempting to play the father against the husband in hyphenated last names, is sinful and a rejection of the creation mandate. The latter is probably more common, as in the Rodham-Clinton example above. Who has dominion over this woman - her father or husband? I would interpret it to be neither, and I think that is the whole point of why the feminist culture advocates that.


----------



## Kevin

Bob I agree with you, but I think it is cultural not biblical.

Now I happen to believe that this part of our (western) culture is based on biblical principles & is worth saving & defending. I also think that those who undermine this tradition do so out of a desire to undermine the underlying biblical principal.

But, we are making a big leap to say "thus saith the LORD..."

in my opinion.


----------



## BobVigneault

I see what your saying Tim. What I mean by that is that since the creation of man, man has been the covenant head and the wife has cleaved to her husband . So the question is, once surnames are introduce, should they reflect the headship and authority of the husband?



TimV said:


> 10,000 years was not hyperbole, I'm a young earther
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that surnames have only been around a fifth as long, and even then only in limited areas of the world, what examples could you give of any sort of names 8,000 years ago? After all, you're appealing to tradition.
Click to expand...


----------



## BobVigneault

Well said Thomas. I agree totally.



Thomas2007 said:


> Bob,
> 
> I think you are on the right track. The practice in our culture was developed through English Common Law which is customs derived from Biblical law.
> 
> The man is the covenantal head of the family, a woman takes a man's last name because she is transfered from her father's household to her husband.
> 
> The modern propensity of rejecting a husbands name, or attempting to play the father against the husband in hyphenated last names, is sinful and a rejection of the creation mandate. The latter is probably more common, as in the Rodham-Clinton example above. Who has dominion over this woman - her father or husband? I would interpret it to be neither, and I think that is the whole point of why the feminist culture advocates that.


----------



## Seb

TimV said:


> Since then she's tried to talk me into changing our last name a couple of times, for the sake of our daughter of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you give your wife the option of picking the kid's names
Click to expand...




She picked the first name, I picked the middle, God picked the last:

"Katie Camille Butts"


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BobVigneault said:


> I took a pretty firm stand at supper last night and really ticked off my 24 year old daughter. I have some good friends, a married couple, and the wife kept her maiden name.
> 
> I made the statement that this is a non-negotiable. My argument was that in marriage a man and woman become one flesh and that means there cannot be two names for one flesh - there is ONE name. Furthermore, because the man is the head of the family it is his name that represents the family.
> 
> I told her that lots of folks can have novel ideas based on politics and sentiment but my stand has 10,000 years of endorsement and it's non negotiable.
> 
> How firm is the ground I'm arguing from? Is there a Biblical argument for the woman taking the man's name? It seems like a no brainer to me but I'd better be sure.



God called the man and woman together by the name Adam.


----------



## TimV

> So the question is, once surnames are introduce, should they reflect the headship and authority of the husband?



Of course, in most circumstances, as it's the clear Scriptural pattern, and as has been pointed out, the household transfer ship comes when the woman is married. And very few mature Christian women would argue with that, although in the case of special last names there can be a pre-nup that allows the woman to have the last say as to the kids names 

Sorry, Seb!! As a young man I hoped my name meant the mighty dragon slayer or some such, and when I found out than Vaughan is the feminine form of the word small in Welsh, I was somewhat deflated


----------



## CDM

The assuming of the husband’s last name is a purely cultural convention. I have not, nor ever heard of, a biblical case for this practice. However, I can see how this practice / convention get's its inspiration from biblical principles, i.e., the males being covenant head of household. 

That being said, I think it is a good cultural convention we ought to keep.


----------



## BobVigneault

I used to live in a very old farmhouse built by the Butts family. They came from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin after the War of Northern Aggression. We had all their names over our kitchen doorway. It's a pretty common name but I am curious if you have any Seymours in your family tree.





Seb said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since then she's tried to talk me into changing our last name a couple of times, for the sake of our daughter of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you give your wife the option of picking the kid's names
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She picked the first name, I picked the middle, God picked the last:
> 
> "Katie Camille Butts"
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Of course the funny thing is that most women who keep their maiden name are really keeping their _father's_ name.


----------



## Christusregnat

Bob,

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 *Male and female *created he *them*; and blessed *them*, and *called their name Adam*, in the day when they were created. 

Notice, that Eve (though she had her own separate name given to her by Adam) was also named Adam. Mr. & Mrs. Adam, you might say.

This is one of the basic principals of biblical law: the wife comes under the authority of her husband, and is called by his name.

The name represents authority. We use the surname as a device to recognize whose authority one is under. For a woman to retain her father's surname is to recognize that she is still under her father's authority. When a woman marries, this is not the case, and she must take her husband's name. If she keeps both, then she has two masters (which is impossible).

By the by, surnames are given in the bible, as you may see with Simon Bar-Johah, which means Simon Johnson in our modern usage.

Modern feminism is a laughing matter. Hillary Rotten Clinton is recognizing that she is under the "name" or authority of both her father and her reprobate husband. Rather than showing her independence, she is (on paper) acknowledging that she has two lords. Women who reject the name of their husband are rejecting the husband's authority, and this is the real issue. When God puts His NAME on us, it says we are His. When a husband puts his name on his wife, it shows she is his.

Cheers,

Adam







BobVigneault said:


> I took a pretty firm stand at supper last night and really ticked off my 24 year old daughter. I have some good friends, a married couple, and the wife kept her maiden name.
> 
> I made the statement that this is a non-negotiable. My argument was that in marriage a man and woman become one flesh and that means there cannot be two names for one flesh - there is ONE name. Furthermore, because the man is the head of the family it is his name that represents the family.
> 
> I told her that lots of folks can have novel ideas based on politics and sentiment but my stand has 10,000 years of endorsement and it's non negotiable.
> 
> How firm is the ground I'm arguing from? Is there a Biblical argument for the woman taking the man's name? It seems like a no brainer to me but I'd better be sure.


----------



## BobVigneault

Adam, you may be a man on the edge but I like the cut of your jib sir. Perfect! That was a great treatment of the question. Thank you.


----------



## Romans922

I always take it that the man's name should be taken for WOman was named after MAN.


----------



## BobVigneault

That reasoning may sound a bit Johnnie Cochranesque, but I like it.




Romans922 said:


> I always take it that the man's name should be taken for WOman was named after MAN.


----------



## CovenantalBaptist

Re: Genesis 5:2

Although it is an attractive argument for a modern practice, for those saying that God called Adam and Eve "Adam" - while this is iterally true, one must be careful not to read too much into this as the word "Adam" is in Hebrew both an appellative noun meaning "man", _and _the proper name of the first man, much as if we in English should denominate the first man simply "Man." 

If you read Genesis 5:2 in the ESV, this is made more clear. ::Offtopic::This is one reason that there is some differences of opinion as to what is being referred to in Hosea 6:7. See Warfield for an excellent discussion on that text.


----------



## Davidius

BobVigneault said:


> That reasoning may sound a bit Johnnie Cochranesque, but I like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always take it that the man's name should be taken for WOman was named after MAN.
Click to expand...


The linguistic aspect isn't quite so convenient in the Hebrew, though, are they?


----------



## Christusregnat

CovenantalBaptist said:


> Although it is an attractive argument for a modern practice, for those saying that God called Adam and Eve "Adam" - while this is iterally true, one must be careful not to read too much into this as the word "Adam" is in Hebrew both an appellative noun meaning "man", _and _the proper name of the first man, much as if we in English should denominate the first man simply "Man."





Modern practice? I think not.

Also, it seems more likely that the ESV is seeking a politically polite position.

What is more, the authority of Adam is also signified by his giving a name to his wife: Eve. Would you prefer the husbands of today rename their wives, or simply give them their name? Maybe both?

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat

Davidius said:


> The linguistic aspect isn't quite so convenient in the Hebrew, though, are they?



Much more so. <<Ish>> is the word for a man, and <<Ish-ach>> is the word for "taken from man". In the same way, <<Adam>> means earth, or dirt, and Adam was called <<Adam-ach>> or one taken out of the earth. The English term Wo-man is meant to say that Eve was taken "from the womb of man". Pretty much the same concept.

Cheers,

Adam-ach


----------



## fredtgreco

Davidius said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> That reasoning may sound a bit Johnnie Cochranesque, but I like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always take it that the man's name should be taken for WOman was named after MAN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The linguistic aspect isn't quite so convenient in the Hebrew, though, are they?
Click to expand...


Actually, its is even more direct.

One Hebrew word for man is "ish" (transliterated). Woman is "ishshah" which means "taken from man."

Hence Genesis 2:23



> ESV Genesis 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."



I find it interesting that this is the case in both languages.


----------



## KMK

TimV said:


> Since then she's tried to talk me into changing our last name a couple of times, for the sake of our daughter of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you give your wife the option of picking the kid's names
Click to expand...


Yeah, and she probably is not going to choose 'Seymour'. (How many times have your heard that one?)


----------



## CovenantalBaptist

To clarify, I am in no way advocating anything other than complementarianism. I do not like the 20th century practice of women not taking their husband's names, it is a matter of submission, but I don't think that you can force the issue based on Genesis 5:2alone because of the Hebrew as I described earlier. That was my point. And yes, I would agree, Adam named his wife and that does indicate his authority over her (on top of the creation order itself).

"Modern" means anything from the Reformation to 20th century. I was thinking of it in the epoch sense - from the Reformation to now. In the Scriptures I think you would be hard pressed to give a direct example of Man and Woman having the same last name as we understand it in our "modern" culture. Good and necessary consequence from other Scriptures yes, Genesis 5:2, no. The ESV is a proper translation here and is not conceding to an agenda (although it does make other concessions elsewhere, sadly). If it were, then it would say "people".

Genesis 2:23 is a better argument for the modern practice in (most particularly) western culture as is the forementioned Genesis 3:20.


----------



## KenPierce

I think this is more cultural than Biblical, though I agree a wife ought to take her husband's name.

Some very traditional cultures incorporate the maiden name: for instance, Spanish-speaking cultures. In the deep South, the woman's maiden name is often used as her "middle" name when she gets married. This predates women's lib.

Just an interesting factoid. I do think the woman's name ought to incorprate the husband's name as the indication that this is a "new" family, that she has left and cleft, as it were!


----------



## Poimen

No one has last names in the Bible but they are the 'son of Abraham', or the 'son of Jacob', or... well you get the picture. 

In other words, one's identity is wrapped up in their father's name. Of course someone would/could argue that this is merely an ANE convention or practice and by no means establishes a binding principle for all time. 

That may be but note that even Jesus was the son of His father and so, by adoption, are we sons of God, baptized in the name etc.


----------



## Archlute

CovenantalBaptist said:


> Re: Genesis 5:2
> 
> Although it is an attractive argument for a modern practice, for those saying that God called Adam and Eve "Adam" - while this is iterally true, one must be careful not to read too much into this as the word "Adam" is in Hebrew both an appellative noun meaning "man", _and _the proper name of the first man, much as if we in English should denominate the first man simply "Man."
> 
> If you read Genesis 5:2 in the ESV, this is made more clear. ::Offtopic::This is one reason that there is some differences of opinion as to what is being referred to in Hosea 6:7. See Warfield for an excellent discussion on that text.



Your are reading your Hebrew studies w/o any theology behind them, which is the way that they are taught in most modern seminaries, so I don't fault you. "Adam" does indeed have great significance in referring to the original man even when it is employed as a noun to denote men/mankind in general. 

When the statement "son of man/Adam" is employed in the scriptures it is directly linking us (and Christ!) to the parentage of our father Adam. When the scriptures speak of sons of Adam and our frailty, sin nature, etc. it is reminding us that we derive this from our identity with our earthly father. When scripture denotes Ezekiel (as he is repeatedly denoted) as "son of Adam" it is pointing out not only his identity with fallen mankind, but giving a glimpse into the salvific work and work of the great "Son of Adam" toward whom the prophet is pointing. This of course brings us to Christ, the greatest son of Adam who took upon himself direct identity with the race that had fallen through Adam's sin, and who identified himself with us in our fallen humanity/Adam-ness, and redeemed us from it unto himself. He is both a Son of Adam, and as Paul writes, the Second Adam!

Regarding Hosea 6:7, I don't think that there is really any basis to dispute the reading that speaks of Adam transgressing the covenant, and I believe that Warfield does a good job of pointing out most of the reasons for this (although I can't remember if he gets them all). So the dispute isn't really one that should affect the use of that term; it is pretty clear that it is speaking of the covenant breaking of Adam. A similar passage can be found in Job 25:6.

This is not to say that the translation "man/mankind" is not valid (many times it is a necessity), but it is to say that we should never take the approach of theological neutrality or agnosticism found in many modern grammatical and lexical works, thereby failing to make good theological connections.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

The practice of the wife taking the last name of the husband seems like a cultural tradition based on Biblical concepts. The most compelling Biblical argument to me comes from good ol' Ephesians 5, which compares Christ and the Church to a husband and his bride. If, as Christians, we take the name of Christ after our salvation when He becomes our head, it makes sense to complete the analogy with the wife taking the name of her husband when he becomes her head. It's a nice symbol for the wife to take her husband's last name when she leaves her old name/old identity behind, just as we leave the "old man" and our old identities behind when we are incorporated into the Church.

So, I don't think it's sinful for the wife not to take her husband's last name, but it is a good practice.


----------



## Archlute

I always get a kick out of the false dichotomy brought about when people attempt to argue that something is either cultural and therefore of little consequence or biblical and therefore we should take it more seriously. Culture is never neutral, it is either more biblical or less biblical in how it has been influenced. Dismissing something as being unimportant to change/reclaim under the guise of it being "merely a part of Western culture, etc." shows more the negative impact of modern missiology than it does a Christian view of culture. That view would say, "It is both Western and correct, because the Western view is, in this instance, founded on a Christian view of life while the Asian culture is wrong at this point, because it is a cultural practice founded on principles that are devoid of Christian knowledge."

I know some of you won't want to swallow your medicine, but that's too bad, because I also think that Christendom was, in general, a good thing.


----------



## Kim G

Archlute said:


> I always get a kick out of the false dichotomy brought about when people attempt to argue that something is either cultural and therefore of little consequence or biblical and therefore we should take it more seriously. Culture is never neutral, it is either more biblical or less biblical in how it has been influenced. Dismissing something as being unimportant to change/reclaim under the guise of it being "merely a part of Western culture, etc." shows more the negative impact of modern missiology than it does a Christian view of culture. That view would say, "It is both Western and correct, because the Western view is, in this instance, founded on a Christian view of life while the Asian culture is wrong at this point, because it is a cultural practice founded on principles that are devoid of Christian knowledge."



I understand what you're saying. However, you can only take it so far. What you are presenting I would consider a "false dichotomy"=everything is either Christian or non-Christian. In ancient Asia, women wore pants and men wore robes. In the West, men wear pants and women (traditionally) wear skirts. Neither is a Christian vs. non-Christian view of life. It's just . . . clothing styles. Same with types of food eaten, traditional music styles, etc. Unless maybe you wouldn't consider this neutral.

In the Bible, I would have been called Kim, daughter of Ken. Upon getting married, I STILL would have been Kim, daughter of Ken, not Kim, wife of Josh, right? So maybe the biblical precident is that the daughter retains the name of her father.


----------



## Christusregnat

Kim,

Here are some examples of the basic way of surnaming a married woman:

Genesis 11:31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the _wife of his son Abram_, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Haran, they settled there.

Judges 4:4 Deborah, a prophetess, the _wife of Lappidoth_, was leading Israel at that time.

Judges 5:24 "Most blessed of women be Jael, 
the _wife of Heber the Kenite_, 
most blessed of tent-dwelling women.

2 Samuel 12:10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the _wife of Uriah the Hittite _to be your own.' (note, 11:3 mentions her specifically as the daughter of Eliam, as well as the wife of Uriah; but the "wife of" is her ongoing title).

1 Kings 14:5-6 But the LORD had told Ahijah, "_Jeroboam's wife _is coming to ask you about her son, for he is ill, and you are to give her such and such an answer. When she arrives, she will pretend to be someone else." 6 So when Ahijah heard the sound of her footsteps at the door, he said, "Come in, wife of Jeroboam. Why this pretense? I have been sent to you with bad news.


Luke 8:3 Joanna the _wife of Cuza_, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.


John 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the _wife of Clopas_, and Mary Magdalene.

Revelation 21:9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, _the wife of the Lamb_."

Notice in each case, that the "second name" to describe who this woman is identifies the woman with her husband; this is the function of our surname, and reflects Eve's identity as Mrs. Adam, and the church's identity as the Mrs. The Lamb.

Cheers,

Adam



Kim G said:


> In the Bible, I would have been called Kim, daughter of Ken. Upon getting married, I STILL would have been Kim, daughter of Ken, not Kim, wife of Josh, right? So maybe the biblical precident is that the daughter retains the name of her father.


----------



## Kim G

Christusregnat said:


> Kim,
> 
> Here are some examples of the basic way of surnaming a married woman:
> 
> [_snip]_
> 
> Notice in each case, that the "second name" to describe who this woman is identifies the woman with her husband; this is the function of our surname, and reflects Eve's identity as Mrs. Adam, and the church's identity as the Mrs. The Lamb.



Thanks for correcting me. (That's why I added "right?" at the end of my sentence. I guess I should edit it to say "wrong!")


----------



## Archlute

Kim G said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always get a kick out of the false dichotomy brought about when people attempt to argue that something is either cultural and therefore of little consequence or biblical and therefore we should take it more seriously. Culture is never neutral, it is either more biblical or less biblical in how it has been influenced. Dismissing something as being unimportant to change/reclaim under the guise of it being "merely a part of Western culture, etc." shows more the negative impact of modern missiology than it does a Christian view of culture. That view would say, "It is both Western and correct, because the Western view is, in this instance, founded on a Christian view of life while the Asian culture is wrong at this point, because it is a cultural practice founded on principles that are devoid of Christian knowledge."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you're saying. However, you can only take it so far. What you are presenting I would consider a "false dichotomy"=everything is either Christian or non-Christian. In ancient Asia, women wore pants and men wore robes. In the West, men wear pants and women (traditionally) wear skirts. Neither is a Christian vs. non-Christian view of life. It's just . . . clothing styles. Same with types of food eaten, traditional music styles, etc. Unless maybe you wouldn't consider this neutral.
> 
> In the Bible, I would have been called Kim, daughter of Ken. Upon getting married, I STILL would have been Kim, daughter of Ken, not Kim, wife of Josh, right? So maybe the biblical precident is that the daughter retains the name of her father.
Click to expand...


No, you would still have been called Kim, the wife of Josh; see Gen. 24:15, 36:10, etc.


----------



## Archlute

Guess I got there a bit late.


----------



## Christusregnat

Kim,

I took it as a question, and my response more of an answer than correction, but thanks for confirming your intent 

Cheers,

Adam




Kim G said:


> Thanks for correcting me. (That's why I added "right?" at the end of my sentence. I guess I should edit it to say "wrong!")


----------



## Christusregnat

Hate it when that happens!



It is nice when two responses are the same though...



Archlute said:


> Guess I got there a bit late.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Not that it realy mattered to me at the time, but when my wife and I married, she took my name and kept her middle name dropping her maiden name entirely.

She's quite comfortable with that discision and as we have grown more covenantal over the years she finds it to be appropriate as she is no longer under her father's headship but mine.

Just the way things have worked out in the Jacobs' household anyway.


----------



## Mushroom

> Johnnie Cochranesque


Is that one in the lexicon yet?


----------

