Newlywed Not Allowed To Change Name On License

[davidinalameda]

Traci Turpin of Knoxville married her female partner in Washington DC on Tuesday. Gay marriage is legal in the District of Columbia.

"We had a nice ceremony. Shed some tears and walked away feeling confident and happy," said Turpin.

When they returned back to Knoxville, Turpin visited the Social Security office to have her last name legally changed to that of her partner's.

She then traveled to the Department of Motor Vehicles in West Knoxville to do the same on her driver's license. There were no questions asked and Turpin walked out of the office with her new license in hand.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=102931&catid=148

[sakabatou]

1. Fucking hell...

[xynthee]

2. Bloody hell!

[Ozymanithrax]

3. She needs to take thes state to court...and take it to the Supreme Court...

Force the state to follow the law.

[saracat]

4. What is ironic is as a straight woman married for over twenty four years

I had to fight to "keep" my own name. I refuse to be identified by someone else's name. Even now, though it is rarer, I still get questions. Blockbuster wouldn't give me a video card for my husband because we didn't share a last name! (no wonder they went out of Biz!) It really is too bad people aren't allowed to conduct their marriage partner ships the way they wish. It is no one business what she wants to call herself.

[Better Today]

5. Foolish on her part for even mentioning the sex of her marriage partner in a state that doesn't

recognize ssm. I mean really. From the article: "Turpin says that if she had not told employees at the DMV that she was married to a woman, she would still have the license with her new married name." A hetero-married woman wouldn't have said anything about the type of marriage she had, why would a samesex-married woman feel the need to flaunt in a circumstance where she might lose?

She brought her humiliation onto herself, imo.

[Unvanguard]

6. Wait, really?

You think this is her fault, for "flaunt(ing)"?

Wow.

[Better Today]

7. Yes. There's a time and a place, but she knew she had to leave the state to get married, so she

knew her marriage would not be embraced in TN. We are responsible for the response we receive in unfair environments if we are careless about our comments in those environments. It's not like her name change or lack thereof is any big deal. She's claiming humiliation, well we all get to feel that now and again. I'm sure she will survive.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

10. "too small and insignificant to care about"

Wow.

It's an assault on her human rights. It is not justifiable. It is unnecessary. It was a reminder that the state considers her a lesser citizen. No, she didn't get beat up. Yes, she could have gone along to get along, just as Black folk were asked to do during segregation, just as other powerless minorities have been asked to on all manner of issues. People who are not allowed to visit their dying partners in the hospital are not being beaten up either, but it shouldn't be happening whether they get their feelings hurt or not.

Sad point of view on your part. Immoral law is immoral even if it is the law.

Please show me the complete scale of outrage based on state-sponsored bigotry we are supposed to be referencing. I think I missed it.

[Better Today]

11. Puleaze. Not all indignities are equal. To address as such is not realistic.

[Hissyspit]

13. She's being treated unequally under the law. It is unconstitutional.

All unconstitutional indignities are equal in that they are unconstitutional.

[Better Today]

17. So me being a woman and underpaid is okay, because it's unconstitutional, or

all the black men in jail unfairly is okay because it's unconstitutional, and all the darker skinned people who are detained and questioned solely because of their skin color is okay, because it's uncontitutional?

Really?

[plantwomyn]

14. death by a thousand cuts

While it may be true that not all indignities are equal they nonetheless accumulate. No one seems to see the irony here that the GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA recognized her right to change her name to her married name as stated on her marriage certificate. I believe that trumps the STATE OF TENNESSEE. The reason I know this is that we went to Iowa to get married and went through the same process. Do you think I would have a license in my married name today if the STATE OF INDIANA thought they could deny it to me? I think not. It has NOTHING to do with recognizing the marriage, it has to do with recognizing a legal change of her name. GET IT?

Unless you have felt the humiliation of having your family's status desolve simply because you crossed a state line you have no idea about the significance of the pain it causes. We cried when we crossed the Mississippi.

What astounds me is your comment that "We are responsible for the response we receive in unfair environments if we are careless about our comments in those environments." You demand for cowardice is breathtaking. Lucky for you and all of the rest of us there were and are much more brave souls than you, who refuse to stay closeted. I equate your statement to the idea that a woman is asking for "it" if she wears provocative clothing. PULEAZE!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

12. I don't see how she could have gotten around that

She had to produce the marriage licence in order to justify the name change and once she did it likely became obvious what the gender of the spouse was.

[Better Today]

16. She, herself, said in the article. . .

From the article: "Turpin says that if she had not told employees at the DMV that she was married to a woman, she would still have the license with her new married name."

[dsc]

20. and just before that it said

that she had to have two documents to get the drivers licence. The Social Security card and the document explaining the name change, namely the marriage licence.

[Better Today]

21. Her mates name may not be gender specific, and the employee

probably wouldn't have paid too much attention to the name even if it was gender specific. She says herself that it was her remarks that made the difference, and I'll take her at her word.

[dsc]

25. So if Pat marries Pat it is all golden

but if David marries Robert then we have a problem. Yea, that sounds like a rational way to go.

[Better Today]

27. In TN, yes, those are the facts. Not the facts as they should be, but the facts as they are.

[ruggerson]

19. For all you know

the DMV worker could have chatted with her as the paperwork was being processed and the marriage certificate provided as proof. Turpin could have referred to her "wife", which would have been tantamount to telling the DMV that she was "married to a woman."

What you are advocating is that she should have lied, either actively or by ommission. You have no way of knowing if she "flaunted" her wife, or if it was a casual, truthful response to a general question asked of newlyweds.

The very fact that you employ the word "flaunt" (which is an extremely hostile, religious rightwing, anti-gay buzzword) betrays more than a little hostility to the LGBT community which is seeking nothing more than equal rights under the law.

[Better Today]

22. Nope, my "hostility" as you say, or lack of empathy as I say, is due to

her expecting that TN was going to embrace something she knew it wouldn't.

I have no hostility towards LGBT and vote, promote, and speak pro-marriage, pro-rights every time. And in the end, that's where it counts, right?

As I mention above, there are so many more important LGBT issues, like violence against them, like getting all states to open marriage up to them, like getting benefits and custody rights, that this name issue on a license is just not worth getting my empathy in an uproar over.

[ruggerson]

23. There are indeed far more important issues

in the broad sense. But each one of these small, day to day occurrences is emblematic of nationwide oppression. If people cannot feel free to answer questions honestly while performing a civil task at the DMV, it highlights a much bigger problem: the lack of equal marriage rights nationwide.

I agree that her story is not the end of the world for her. She can scrape up the funds to legally change her last name - she wasn't physically attacked - no one died in this encounter.

So, yes it's another very small attack on someone's personhood. Nothing to take to the streets over, but still symbolic of larger, institutionalized bigotry.

Your active support of marriage rights is greatly appreciated by all, straight and gay, involved in this human rights fight. The use of the word "flaunt," however, should be stricken from any discussions of these issues, as it sets off huge alarm bells.

[Better Today]

24. I don't disagree but I've always had issues with letting the more trivial get in the

way of the substantive. It seems to me to be harmful to any cause. just my opinion.

[plantwomyn]

30. Another example of letting the trivial get in the way

of the substantial would be refusing to allow people of color to sit at the lunch counter. Why force a state or a town or a company to recognize a right they refuse to embrace. How very trivial in the light of lynchings, beatings, rape and subjugation. After all they could have just accepted the way it was and kept going around to the back door. They didn't say that they couldn't have food. Does it really matter how you get your food as long as you get it? They brought the humiliation on themselves!


AND THEIR CHOICE TO DO SO CHANGED A NATION!

[LostinVA]

29. This is THE core LGBT right: equal rights and protection under the law

Trying to minimalize it and blame the victim of such discrimination seems a bit disingenuous to me, unless one is playing Devil's Advocate, which you aren't.

[WillParkinson]

31. We all have issues that are important to us...

Perhaps, to them, this was the most important issue in their life at this time. Sorry, we do not get to decide what is or is not important for someone else.

[Book Lover]

26. I'm going to set aside the fact that you used the trigger word "flaunt"

and bring this up instead: in the article, we read "There were no questions asked and Turpin walked out of the office with her new license in hand. But before she drove away, an employee of the Department of Motor Vehicles approached her car and asked for the new license back."

I think we are safe in inferring that once the marriage license was reviewed by someone in a supervisory position, the line worker was told to go get the newly issued DL back. I myself do not see where Mrs. Turpin's conversation while at the window affected the issuance of the license. While we also do read, "Turpin says that if she had not told employees at the DMV that she was married to a woman, she would still have the license with her new married name," I cannot agree that is the case; I think the poor woman was speaking from the heart, without thinking.

[d_r]

8. Name changes

I had a conversation with a lady a few weeks ago whose name was "Linda Amadala Skywalker Jinn Kinobi." She showed me her driver's license, it was legal.

Let me be clear here. I think what happened to this lady sucks, and I think it sucks that bigots here in Tennessee can do this kind of crap. I do think though - and I am no legal expert - that there is a way to legally change her name. She shouldn't have to go through the hassle and expense, of course, but I think she can do it through existing channels if she wants to go that route. I wish she'd do it just to snub it on those jerks.

[plantwomyn]

15. Yes even though we are married

we have spent a pretty penny getting legal documentation of everything in order to protect what little status we have in the State of Indiana. This is a "GAY TAX" that the State charges in addition to not allowing us to file jointly. SUCKS!

[d_r]

28. I agree it does suck.