An early suffragette said something along the lines of 'I'd rather have the name of the husband I picked than the father I didn't' - that struck a cord with me.
There is always this temptation to make assumptions about why people do or don't take their husband's names - that either way is some sort of statement. Sometimes it is - sometimes it's not. And, in the case of the suffragette above, sometimes it is - but it's not the statement you think it is.
BF is considering taking my name if we ever marry (he's a radical standpoint feminist though). I don't mind either way. I will keep my name, not because it's my 'maiden' name, but because it feels like my name, and I like it, it fits together with my first name. I won't be precious about it if people who can't pronounce it call me Mrs. BFlastname (some times for simplicity sake - like ordering taxis I just my first name and his last name, why go to all the trouble of teaching someone who will never meet me again how to spell and/or pronounce it?)
BF and I have agreed that if we ever have kids, daughters will have my name and sons will have his.
I like double barrelled names for couples, but I always wonder what happens when the kids marry: what do Susie Smith-Jones and John Doe-Bloggs call themselves on marriage, or call their kids?
I would like a system where say you were girl mothersname-fathersname or boy fathersname-mothersname, until marriage when you each took your same-sex parent's name and then hypenated that.
So on marriage, Susie Smith-Jones and John Doe-Bloggs would become Susie Smith-Doe and John Doe-Smith (name samesexparentname-spousename); their children would be daughter Smith-Doe and son Doe-Smith.
But I don't see that happening