Unless there's an overwhelming professional reason for not taking the husband's name, it makes me
deeply suspicious of the woman's commitment to the marriage. It's a hugely significant part of the
"traditional" package, which includes a solemn oath to God of fidelity, love, and support for the
remainder of one's mortal life. To us traditional troglodytes, changing names is important testimony
of commitment to that oath.
As it pertains to marriage, "non-traditional" is a DUmmy concept that does not include God, or fidelity,
or any other type of commitment that lasts beyond today's urges. It has been disastrous for much
of our society, since the concept of "family" is almost entirely dependent on those traditional values
of marriage.
I knew two moonbats at work who married. He wanted her to change names, she didn't want to, and
he was very badly whipped. They made a moonbat compromise, goofier even than that hyphenated
nonsense. They made up a new legal name from the first syllable of his name, and the second syllable of
her name. The resulting hybrid was a monstrosity that probably causes people they meet to think
his ancestors came from Mars.
