It has been a tradition since the dawn of time that when a woman marries a man, she leaves her family and joins her husband's.

Traditionally, this was quite literal. When women married, they almost never or never did see their own family after saying "I do." The world has changed in the last two millenniums, and marriage is more for love today than for financial or logistical reasons.

In fact, some relationships don't make it to the marriage level because of familial incompatibility. You're not going to want to marry someone if their sister or father hates your guts, right?

My argument is about your last name. Your last name identifies what family you're from. Technically, I'm simply Alexander Ivanoff. However, I identify with all of my families, and surprisingly not so much my own. My great-grandfather Vladimir can count only three descendants in the United States with that name: my uncle, my brother, and myself. My aunt (by marriage) kept her maiden name.

With my mom's first and third (current) marriages, she simply took her husband's name as a third name. That courtesy (for more practical reasons) didn't extend to my dad when the two of them married.

I have been unable to explain why I am not bothered by the fact that my parents were unmarried and living together with no marriage plans when I was born. To this day I cannot explain or comprehend why I'm barely creeped out by the arrangement.

I'd be thrilled if my bride-to-be kept her own name, because almost nothing sounds well with "Ivanoff" at the end. Laura Ivanoff? Mom, thanks for keeping your name. What works in Slavic-speaking countries doesn't necessarily work in the States.

Part of it is my own aminosity towards my own last name. Ivanoff (or should I say IVANOV) is Russian for "Son of John." That's right--- I'm a Johnson. My last name is as common as Smith is here in the United States (or if you are in Northern New York, as common as Martin or Russell or LeSomething that sounds French or Irish or Scottish).

Two articles I've read about the subject offer some insight. An article from the New York Times "Upshot" featurette discusses how keeping the maiden name has rebounded. Between keeping the maiden name or hyphenating, nearly 30% of all women keep their name. From my own observations, that hasn't been the case. Many of my close female acquaintances and friends from high school and college have taken their husband's name. According to a source a writer for the Guardian cited for an article, a full 50% of Americans think you should be legally required to take your husband's name.

Really? I'm sorry if I look like a deer staring into headlights.

The days of naming conventions are beginning to be bygone, and on the flipside, there are enough men who feel a certain bond with their spouse's family. For instance it could be because his father-in-law has no sons of his own, or his spouse might be an only child.

For me, marriage is not the institution that people make it out to be. It's a legal contract between two consenting adults who are in love with one another and want to, regardless of names, call themselves a family. My definition is not so far from dictionary: the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.

Let me get back to my shaky argument: I'm against a woman taking her husband's name because she should maintain her own identity as a person even though she's married to someone. Your life doesn't stop just because you tie the knot. If anything, I'd live with my future spouse for a while so I know what I'll be up against before I wed.

While I will, in my case, leave it up to my bride-to-be (whoever will have that privilege in the future), I ask her one thing.

For the love of God, don't take my last name!

Do what you want. If you insist you take my name, do so. Be lucky you have a say in the matter, because Prince Philip of the United Kingdom (the Duke of Edinburgh) once said “I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his children."