House Bill 3555 amends Oregon’s marriage and domestic partnership name-change statutes to expressly allow a person, when entering into a marriage or registered domestic partnership, to change their middle name back to the name they used at birth or before the relationship. The bill also preserves existing options for keeping a middle name, changing a surname, combining surnames, or otherwise selecting a lawful post-relationship name within the statute’s limits.
The measure clarifies that the name listed on the marriage application, license, record, or domestic partnership declaration becomes the person’s sole legal name after the relationship is formed, unless the person seeks a separate court-approved name change. It also defines “middle name” and “surname” broadly to include one or more names, which may help accommodate compound or multi-part names.
Impact
HB3555 would amend ORS 106.220 and ORS 106.335, the statutes governing name changes upon marriage and domestic partnership. Its practical effect is to expand and clarify the administrative name-change options available at the time of marriage or partnership registration, while leaving the general court name-change process in place for changes outside those enumerated options. The bill primarily affects marrying couples, registered domestic partners, county clerks, and agencies that rely on marriage and partnership records for identity documentation.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be a straightforward administrative clarification rather than a controversial policy change. The language suggests a generally neutral-to-supportive intent: to make it easier for people to restore a birth or prior middle name when formalizing a marriage or domestic partnership. No opposition, amendments, or divided votes are shown in the available record.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope of name changes permitted without a separate court proceeding. The bill allows restoration of a birth or prior middle name, but it also reinforces that any name change outside the listed options still requires court approval under ORS 33.410. Any debate would likely center on whether the statute should be broader or whether the administrative process should remain tightly defined to avoid confusion in vital records and identity verification. No specific opposing viewpoints are documented in the provided committee or voting history.