That's how MAGA does marriage, usually

[Sweet Home Alabama intensifies]

Roll tide

Hmmm

Found the Kentuckian

I get the joke, but is it really so rare in the US for a woman to keep her own surname after marriage?

while i get the joke, i just want to make sure it's clear to anyone coming across this understnds that women who elect to change their name in the merital tradition of erasure are more likely to be conservative, and the women who have the documents to prove their identity (like a passport) are more likely to be progressive.

all that said, the focus on how this will impact women, specifically, is frustrating because it's ignoring the biggest groups of people who will be impacted: immigrants and working poor people. we shouldn't tolerate the disenfranchisement of ~30% of women, so we are clear, but we are positioned to disenfranchise ~80% of immigrants and working poor and no one is talking about it. these are people who are less likely to have ANY of the acceptable documents proposed in the SAVE act.

for context, people experiencing poverty are far less likely to be born in a hospital and have a birth certificate, usually depending on a baptism certificate to establish their government name. meanwhile, immigrants may have a passport, but if it's expired that's unacceptable, and a lot of the nations around the world that issued the birth certificates being required by this law in place of a passport can no longer certify birth certificates simply because they aren't existing anymore. i have multiple friends who can't get their birth certificates right now because that would put them at risk of government retribution because they are asylum seekers. for example, my siberian neighbor isn't going to be getting in touch with the Russian government any time soon.

so in conclusion. the aim is to disenfranchise women and minorities. the majority of the women disenfranchised will be conservative. however, the majority of people disenfranchised will be progressive.

and that's no accident.

Or it will disqualify a lot of married women who took their partner's name

Unmarried women and women who keep their last name will have less trouble voting... and people whose names differ and are aware of the change, are more likely to go through the bullshit to make sure they're registered. Maybe it'll prevent a bunch of Magats from being able to vote

It's utterly disgusting either way. Hope it backfires, they lose, and they're persecuted. A kid can dream

Yes but who is going to be enforcing this? Where specifically are they going to be enforcing this?

Because it ain't gonna be Bumfuck, Alabama who has gone red since the Civil War.

If I'm understanding this correctly, passports are also a valid form of citizenship. Passports are usually held by people who lean left, so this could be another advantage the left has in this insane proposition.

I hope passports will remain good enough. I was born to irresponsible teenagers and was legally adopted by one parent, and none of them gave me a copy of my birth certificate. I'm starting to worry that it would be worth tracking it down so I'll have a copy just in case.

This is all so insane, getting our papers in order in case we need to show them to avoid getting disappeared.

It's proof of citizenship. But also, here it's a convenient and plausibly deniable way to disenfranchise people who vote differently than them.

Here is a list of allowed document for a similar problem, for employment. Note that it categorizes the possibilities as ID, citizenship, and work authorization, and you may need one each from multiple groups. For example you might use a drivers license as ID and a certified birth certificate as proof of citizenship

• https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-acceptable-documents

It’s not quite the same since this allows identifying as from another country and with a valid work authorization, which do not apply to voting, but very similar

Obviously I’m not saying this is appropriate to mandate for voting but if we were, this is a well thought out answer to that sort of question.

It doesn’t address the voter suppression concern though

Long form or short form? Lol

(☞ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)☞

Do the Republicans really think

Not usually

So your local lesbian coven of naturalized middle aged Latinas.

Just want to emphasize this hilarious line for anyone who doesn’t feel like reading the entire post. Please carry on.

and Patriarchy

Voting as a man when you’re not? Jail time for you.

Our elections take place inside the state where we reside. We have state ID with a picture and the voting rolls match our address. It’s a pretty simple process that has worked for the last 40 years or so. I’ve always had to provide proof ID and residence to vote

Right? Imagine claiming to be the greatest country on earth and then not even have a national ID, something I bet even every third world country has lol. The US is such a circus lol.

Next they'll exclude anyone whose current hair color doesn't match their official one.

It also takes weeks or months to get official documents in order.

A lot of states have been banning name changes for trans people, I think this was a dumb attack on trans people.

When my wife and I married she only took my last name because her father abandoned her when she was 6 months old, and she wanted to erase that from her identity.

Yeah. But the hit to potential Democratic voters will make it worth their while.

Essentially women would need to provide additional paperwork in order to vote. Republican women have that paperwork, or can get it easier.

Marginally yes they are, but it's still more common in my experience that the woman changes their name more often than not.

It's a bit of paperwork, but it does make things easier when you have the same last name. Until president asshat decided to disenfranchise people.

I'd say the important statistic is that more conservative women get married overall

It doesn't even matter. If only men vote then Republicans win. Women add more votes to Democrats. Removing them from the picture for voting simply helps Republicans.