Where is Moonshadow?????

[Sinned]

Thanks, just joking really and it's nice to have friends around. There's others that I miss as well though I presume that they check in regularly just haven't much to add. As for catching up on the posts it certainly takes time. Been at it off and on for over a day now and still some way to go. The thread on guns took some wading through. I enjoyed your log of your holiday. Mine was fine, as expected good weather 32 degrees and I've eaten things, fish and vegetables that I didn't know existed and can't remember the names of, akee butterfish, snapper and yam come to mind - I should have made a note of them at the time.

Just to put a downer on things on the tea time of the day before the wedding my son told MOH and I that he would be taking on his partner's surname and, whilst this may seem trivial, it came as quite a shock to us. It seems that all there knew but us. I asked him specifically and he confirmed it so I said that I wouldn't be there at the ceremony and I didn't attend anything. MOH and my daughter, her partner and our three grandchildren attended the ceremony only. I was gutted and, I suppose that he is entitled to call himself what ever he likes but the way it was communicated seemed so much like a betrayal. So there are no photos of our family at the wedding and the table at the feast was empty. Our sole contribution to the whole affair was MOH signing the register. It still hurts although I have been through worse in the past and I suppose that I will get over it. Had I known a while ago our family could have saved over 10 grand as we wouldn't have even gone to Jamaica. So the holiday was fine but with some bitter memories. Sometimes I feel closer to you than to members of my own family.

[crfriend]

Had I known a while ago our family could have saved over 10 grand as we wouldn't have even gone to Jamaica. So the holiday was fine but with some bitter memories. Sometimes I feel closer to you than to members of my own family.

Ouch, Dennis. That doth indeed suck. Hopefully you have other, happier, memories of the trip to overlay the rotten ones with.

'Twas a scummy move on the part of your offspring to foist the datum on you at that late date. Somebody needs to learn some manners.

Onwards and upwards!

[Kirbstone]

Denis,

I am so sorry to hear of your family troubles. To keep that sort of information from you until the last minute before the ceremony bodes ill for the future of family relations, big-time. I had never heard of the husband taking his wife's surname before. But perhaps I'm an antiquarian crank....Was it a same-sex marriage, by any chance?? I simply cannot get my head around that particular concept, at all.

The adventures of our four offsprings with spouses hasn't been a bed of roses either, but at least the one on which we spent the most money, (in Cyprus 17 years ago) is still flying, with two very agreeable talented grandchildren resultant. (We have eight, altogether).

Tom

[Sinned]

Tom, conventional marriage except that his wife has been blind from birth. I have come across this before. My daughter married and her male partner had had a very fragmented childhood and pushed from pillar to post and no real loyalties to any of the surnames he adopted. We were good to him and he felt close to us so he changed his surname to ours by deed poll. Thus my daughter and her subsequent children kept our name. Not sure about the legality of his name at the moment as presumably his passport hasn't been changed but that doesn't stop him changing it by deed poll later although why he didn't do it beforehand I don't know. Ah well the future will bring what it will. Quite sanguine at the moment.

[Tor]

Dennis, Sorry to hear about that bombshell coming so late in the game. It's the first I recall hearing of that particular arrangement, but I've heard of some others: Husband and wife keeping their names, children with father's, mixed, or even all given the mother's surname. Also, husband and wife, neither liking the other's surname, eventually choosing a different surname, about 9 years later (I watched this one seriously strain family relations for a while). The name one goes by doesn't change who one is.

[moonshadow]

Since I have just got back from 2 weeks in Jamaica I have missed talking to all of ya. So I sort of missed Moon's and Jenn's absence. Nice to be back although I have a LOT of posts to catch up on. I'm miffed, did no-one even miss me? Goes in a corner and sulks.

Another possibility is I'm about to exceed you in total post! Despite you having been a member here three years over me.

Clearly I post a lot! Then when it suddenly stops... people are like... did he die?

(Guess he finally wore a skirt in the wrong bar! )

[moonshadow]

Regarding names:

I have somewhat of a strange last name that causes much confusion and snickering sometimes. It's actually NOT Shadow! I've had enough falling outs with my family that there have been a few times in my life I've considered finding a way to have it changed. But despite my being a family outcast, I'm still my father's only child so I keep it for him. However I've wondered about having it changed to perhaps my mother's maiden name.

These days I don't worry about it. I go by my legal name when I have too, but believe it or not, my online name is gradually morphing into a real world nick name, (Moon, or Moon Shadow). It's initials, MS in an unintended pun of my clothing expression...

In many ways, it works no matter how you arrange it. Bizarre really... quite bizarre.

And for those of you on my facebook and flickr... yes you're being following by a Moon Shadow... a Moon Shadow, Moon Shadow...

[crfriend]

Had my ex- and I ever decided to get into a "traditional" relationship instead of the engineered one that we had (which was remarkably successful until her brain rotted out) the intent was always that she'd retain her "maiden" (although she hadn't been a maiden for decades) name and I would retain mine. Both are good names, and it would have been a shame to jettison either.

On same-sex marriage, which still causes a furore here (although mostly in hotbeds of religious zealotry, like the deep south), I had a bit of a rough go with the concept until I thought it out, and in typical fashion found an outside-the-box solution which solved the issue. Decoupling the notion of marriage from any religious implication was important to me, and then I hit upon the note that in the course of history it's always been the State that grants the license to marry and not the Church; this immediately led me to recast the notion as a matter of contract law -- and with very few exceptions the State has no grounds to prohibit one individual from entering into a contract with any other individual. The only exceptions would include breach of law, but since activities between consenting adults are largely explicitly legal now, that exception would not apply. So, for all the rancour that the notion causes amongst the Taleban here, it's a matter of personal freedom and the right to enter into a contractual arrangement by two individuals who wish to do so.

An interesting approach to surnames was arrived at by a homosexual couple I know of who changed both of their last names into an amalgam of both, thus both preserving family history and likely raising the ire of their parents (if the parents were still living, that is). I thought that rather creative.

[Tor]

crfriend: That, (combined surnames) is one I've also known of in heterosexual married couples. Seems like hyphenation is the method used there, but various possibilities exist. I also one family where the husband and wife each kept their surnames, and their son, given the father's surname, changed his surname to an entirely new one when he turned 18. I believe he'd planned the name change for at least 6 years by that point, so there was no shock.

On SSM, the solution you suggest is one I've seen before, and I think a decent one. Better would be to get the state out of the whole business entirely, whereupon the religious zealots can go rant at the sky, no longer having any useful directions to get there views forced upon others by threat of violent reprisal (unless of course they are prepared to risk the results of such themselves).

[crfriend]

Better would be to get the state out of the whole business entirely, whereupon the religious zealots can go rant at the sky [...]

The issue here is that there are certain privileges that a state of "marriage" (a contractual agreement) confers unto the individuals so engaged, most especially in the realm of critical health-care decisions and access to one another in such situations. As it stands now in the USA, corporate entities trump each and every individual when it comes to medical life matters. Those in a contractual agreement have full access, nobody else does save for the "insurance" industry and their cronies/hangers-on. This may mean the individual one has been intimately involved with for years cannot even visit. So, the State cannot be completely removed from the equation, much as it'd be nice to have it so since the State doesn't represent the citizenry any longer.

Absolutely let the zealots go and howl at the moon (or whatever it is that they howl at these days), but let individuals retain control over their own lives, and when that may not be possible let someone close to them -- and who knows them -- call the shots. Without the muscle of the State there's no guarantee (and even then) of that.

[skirted_in_SF]

The issue here is that there are certain privileges that a state of "marriage" (a contractual agreement) confers unto the individuals so engaged, most especially in the realm of critical health-care decisions and access to one another in such situations. As it stands now in the USA, corporate entities trump each and every individual when it comes to medical life matters. Those in a contractual agreement have full access, nobody else does save for the "insurance" industry and their cronies/hangers-on. This may mean the individual one has been intimately involved with for years cannot even visit. So, the State cannot be completely removed from the equation, much as it'd be nice to have it so since the State doesn't represent the citizenry any longer.

You might look into Healthcare Power of Attorney. Available in most civilized states.

[moonshadow]

Absolutely let the zealots go and howl at the moon

Absolutely NOT! I don't want those nut jobs keeping me up all night!

[Tor]

Carl, I can agree on the medical issue, along with some others that show up similarly, if less starkly. That said, it seems that, on the secular side, marriage approximately boils down to a set of contracts. Form contracts to work with could be quite easily available, allowing each "marriage" to pick the clauses needed, and filed as appropriate. As for the State representing the people, it certainly doesn't now, and I'm not sure how much it ever did. For that matter, I'm not sure any State ever can represent the people.

Beyond that, my thoughts are probably best not aired in this tangent to a thread, if I haven't already said too much.

[crfriend]

You might look into Healthcare Power of Attorney. Available in most civilized states.

That is precisely what my ex- and I had in place. We had crossed wills and each held power of health care proxy for the other. As mentioned, this was an engineered relationship and worked very, very well for a long time.

[Sinned]

Another possibility is I'm about to exceed you in total post! Despite you having been a member here three years over me.

Clearly I post a lot! Then when it suddenly stops... people are like... did he die?

Yeah, vociferous little b*st*rd ain't ya? Seriously Moon, you do seem a bit more up front than me. Guess I have a bit more of the English reserve. I must admit that when I first joined the site it took me a while to really get into posting and it's only recently that I have started posting photos. I suppose some of that comes from MOH's opposition. At first I was worried about what she would say if she found out. Now, I'm not so worried but I am careful not to say anything about her, our relationship or anything in general that I wouldn't want her to see. That way if she did discover this site I wouldn't be contesting an unamicable dissolution of our relationship.