Judge Orders Baby's Name Changed.

[arnisador]

Doesn't that line of thought cause you problems? What gives the government the right to pick and choose what names (if the reasoning isn't based on a particular religious belief?) a parent will choose to give their child? That the government doesn't like it, or finds it inconvenient, isn't a consideration in a parent's privilege to choose their child's name. Actions that are not controlled nor prohibited by law are privileges.

I don't where to draw the line. I suppose the question is: Can a parent abuse the right to name a child? If you want to name your boy Sue, OK; but if you give your child a thousand-letter first name because you know it'll screw up computer registries and you're making a point, is that OK or abusive to the child? I'd give the parents a lot of leeway here, but if a parent names their child F*** Me In The A**hole Jones then I wouldn't object to a court looking at it and asking whether the parents are pulling the child into the parents' protest. I suppose I believe that there is a crossable line in which naming becomes abusive.

For that matter, what makes this a 1st amendment issue rather than a 14th amendment issue? The judge isn't congress, and although the judge stated her reason was religious, what her reason in fact did, was "... abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ..." and "... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ..." Letting you or me pick our child's name, but not those parents, is denying them equal protection.

The parents couldn't agree on a last name, leading the court to become involved. I wouldn't disagree that the judge's ruling is wrong in multiple ways, if that's your point.

It is only a 1st amendment issue if the parents aren't really naming their child to give him a name, but making a statement.

It's a first amendment violation by the judge--the govt. picking a favorite religion. Mohammed continues to be allowed as a name, and I'm sure Buddha is OK too. I've known Thors. The judge is in violation of the law.

 

[Kurai]

Perfect counter to the judge's ruling. What if a parent names their child Jesus, a very common name for some cultures....? There are laws on the books about what a name is legally allowed to be. For instance you can't name yourself a symbol. Messiah however does not violate those laws.

 

[ballen0351]

Only if your point is that you oppose the existence of the judicial system.

No the point is judges get it wrong sometimes. Even supreme Court judges

 

[Tgace]

I'm with the 14th violation vs 1st as well...unless the name was involved with the parents religion there was no 1st violation as I see it. It is a violation of the separation of church and state but that's not in the Constitution.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Touch Of Death]

Gonorrhea....
school teachers can give you a list of outrageous and plum ridiculous names these kids run around with.
I suppose mother wanted to commemorate her conception....the De's and La's don't even register as weird anymore in that context.
Seriously, there should be a law preventing kids having to go through the first and most important years of their lives with a stupid name. Normal names cause enough trouble as it is! Rare names put a bullseye on your back. But going spechul like that?! Child abuse!

We should also force immigrants to name their children American names. Jose' will now be Joe, and so on. Its brilliant!

 

[granfire]

We should also force immigrants to name their children American names. Jose' will now be Joe, and so on. Its brilliant!

Many immigrants do name their kids with American names.

However that was not the point.
I had an unusual name. I still hardly ever run into people with the same name. While there are more people with the same last name in the county alone than you can shake a stick at, I am fairly confident there is no other person with my complete name.
I caught hell in school. and I was not named after a fruit brand, STB or with a name you'd normaly find on a dog.
There is no reason to name a kid Princess...you can call her that as nickname....
Or Gonorrhea...why not Plague....
I heard a young couple naming their son "Leviathon" - really? Was Satan taken already?

 

[oftheherd1]

I don't where to draw the line. I suppose the question is: Can a parent abuse the right to name a child? If you want to name your boy Sue, OK; but if you give your child a thousand-letter first name because you know it'll screw up computer registries and you're making a point, is that OK or abusive to the child? I'd give the parents a lot of leeway here, but if a parent names their child F*** Me In The A**hole Jones then I wouldn't object to a court looking at it and asking whether the parents are pulling the child into the parents' protest. I suppose I believe that there is a crossable line in which naming becomes abusive.

I agree with your concept, but as far as I know, there is not state or federal law to back that up. If there is, I would be glad to hear of it.

The parents couldn't agree on a last name, leading the court to become involved. I wouldn't disagree that the judge's ruling is wrong in multiple ways, if that's your point.

I don't think it is a 1st amendment violation. But yes, the judge was wrong to give out the order.

It's a first amendment violation by the judge--the govt. picking a favorite religion. Mohammed continues to be allowed as a name, and I'm sure Buddha is OK too. I've known Thors. The judge is in violation of the law.

The 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion, specifically the congress since they only have the authority to make laws. The judge is a state judge. The 14th amendment is what prevents her from ordering a name change imho.

But I agree, the bottom line is that the judge is wrong, and the order will be rescinded on appeal, if the appeal is based on the 14th amendment.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Many immigrants do name their kids with American names.

However that was not the point.
I had an unusual name. I still hardly ever run into people with the same name. While there are more people with the same last name in the county alone than you can shake a stick at, I am fairly confident there is no other person with my complete name.
I caught hell in school. and I was not named after a fruit brand, STB or with a name you'd normaly find on a dog.
There is no reason to name a kid Princess...you can call her that as nickname....
Or Gonorrhea...why not Plague....
I heard a young couple naming their son "Leviathon" - really? Was Satan taken already?

I am simply saying that people name their kids Chris all the time. Messiah means the same thing; so, if its happening, so be it. It would become the norm if you let it. Chris sure caught on.
Sean

 

[punisher73]

I'm sure we can all agree that which ever way it is interpreted, the judge overstepped their authority on this one.

Unfortunately, it comes again at the expense of "legal" vs. "responsible".

I'll have to find it, but there was a study done that people with "unique" names do not get callbacks as often as people with more common names on indentical resumes. Yes, you CAN name your kid anything you want. BUT, is it responsible to do so? I'm not referencing just the name in this case but others.

I have seen people name their kids after alcoholic drinks (Daquiri and Courvoisier), and countries (Malaysia) before and all other combinations that they made up of their own spellings of common names (one couple who named their kid "Brian", but insisted that it was spelled "Brain" to be different, or "Mechicca" instead of "Mechiah"). It's not the kids fault, but their parents are setting them up as a joke for the rest of their life.

 

[arnisador]

Unfortunately, it comes again at the expense of "legal" vs. "responsible".

I'll have to find it, but there was a study done that people with "unique" names do not get callbacks as often as people with more common names on indentical resumes. Yes, you CAN name your kid anything you want. BUT, is it responsible to do so? I'm not referencing just the name in this case but others.

The research on that is actually more complicated than what made it into the public debate, but overall I agree--parents can be irresponsible about names and often are. The question in general is, can a name ever be so inappropriate as to constitute abuse. Look at the infamous case of the guy who named his kids after Adolf Hitler and other Nazi leaders. Was that abusive? If he was Hitler's nephew I'd say no--just a really bad idea. Since he was a random neo-Nazi, is it abusive? I'm not sure--but it was certainly something I condemn.

The judge here is plainly in the wrong to object to Messiah because of her stated reason, but could the state ever have an objective reason to limit names? Many countries do proscribe such limits. In Iceland the govt. must approve the name and it must be from Icelandic culture, for example. Similarly in Japan I think.

 

[Touch Of Death]

...France, as well.

 

[billc]

To whom it may concern...my post was in resonse to this post...

Once again, an example of how the religious think everyone else in this country should be forced to live by their standards.

My post was to show that one nutty judge can't compare with judges from the secular progressive side of the equation who are actually affecting the entire country with their rulings on Eminent domain, and also the effect that the secular progressives in other parts of the government have on the rest of the country as well. I would have replied in person...but there was no way to do it...

 

[arnisador]

[h=1]What's it like being called Messiah?[/h]

Messiah Rhodes, a 26-year-old documentary maker who was raised by his Methodist grandparents in Queens, New York.

"I went to church, not just on Sunday but also on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I ran a Bible study group when I was 10 or 11. So the ironic thing here is that I grew up in a religious background but no-one was hostile to my name.


Rhodes is one of thousands of Messiahs in the US, but there are only three on the UK electoral roll


"I wasn't treated special, I was like any other kid. And I really didn't think my name was a big deal until I heard the news from Tennessee. How can you force your faith or belief on somebody else? In Tennessee, the church and state are too close together."

 

[arnisador]

For that matter, what makes this a 1st amendment issue rather than a 14th amendment issue?[...]It is only a 1st amendment issue if the parents aren't really naming their child to give him a name, but making a statement.

I'm with the 14th violation vs 1st as well...unless the name was involved with the parents religion there was no 1st violation as I see it. It is a violation of the separation of church and state but that's not in the Constitution.

The NY Times reports that it is as I suggested--this is a First Amendment matter:

[h=1]In the Name of God, or Baby ‘Messiah,’ Competing Claims of Religious Freedom[/h]

States put all sorts of restrictions on parental naming rights, from the length of first names to what punctuation marks are permissible. But the restrictions cannot, for the most part, be justified by an appeal to religion. It therefore seems likely that Magistrate Ballew’s ruling against “Messiah” will be overturned as a violation of the First Amendment.

I hadn't known this:

“Mary was considered simply too holy for secular use until the 12th century,” Dr. Murray said. Yet today Mary, along with cognates like Maria and Marie, are popular throughout the Christian world.