this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
462 points (99.4% liked)

Microblog Memes

10960 readers
2491 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The SAVE Act passed the House on Feb. 11, 2026 by a vote of 218-213 and is now in the Senate awaiting a vote. Voting is expected to take place next week, according to Thune. If and when it passes the Senate, it will go to the president for a final signature.

Will SAVE Act Prevent Married Women from Registering to Vote?

By Hadleigh Zinsner

Posted on February 28, 2025

Q: Is it true that under the SAVE Act married women will not be able to register to vote if their married name doesn’t match their birth certificate?

A: The proposed SAVE Act instructs states to establish a process for people whose legal name doesn’t match their birth certificate to provide additional documents. But voting rights advocates say that married women and others who have changed their names may face difficulty when registering because of the ambiguity in the bill over what documents may be accepted.

FULL ANSWER

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Do most Americans actually change their names to match the man's last name?

Is this the same in all western countries?

What happens in same-sex marriage? 🤔

My mom's legal last name is still the same as her father's last name, and we're from China... which is kinda weird since the west is supposed to be more progressive in most areas...

I remember my teacher was like writing a note to my mom for some reason and wrote "Mrs.[My Last Name]" and I was like no, that's wrong... that's the first time I learn of this whole... "change last name to match the man's last name" was apparantly a thing.

[–] javiwhite@feddit.uk 1 points 41 minutes ago

Can't speak for the entirety of the West ofc but here in the UK It's traditionally the norm that the woman takes the man's surname; but it's definitely become less common in the last 50 years or so.

It's not uncommon to see double-barrelled names; which are both surnames added together (IE: Mr Smith marrying Miss Jones could become the Smith-Jones') or as you say, retaining their family surname post marriage.

Same sex tend to go down the double barrel or retention routes from what I've experienced. I've met same sex couples where one elected to take the others name, but I'd be surprised if it was the most popular option in SSM, primarily because of where I believe this tradition stems from.

My theory is that the less theocratical a country is, the less prominent this situation is. Religion eh. Helluva drug.

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

Don't worry, they'll only enforce this with Democratic voters

[–] Ksin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

Not having any form of national ID really does lead to some goofy shit when you need to positivly identify people.

[–] needanke@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago

They are also going after Mail-In voting already:

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Americans can’t sue the U.S. Postal Service, even when employees deliberately refuse to deliver mail.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-postal-service-missing-mail-7ce97a5b7d56373cdeaa6ecc9a9132f5

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

It's just the first step in taking women's and trans right to vote away. There are other steps too. This is just the start.

[–] ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 hours ago

Looking forward to being a future target for never having married and/or taken a man’s name next!

None of us are safe until all of us are safe.

[–] pirate2377@lemmy.zip 12 points 3 hours ago

"Don't get married, women. Or you no longer have the right to vote!" -- MAGA, apparently

[–] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago

Ambiguity, which means that the rules will bend in favour of the priviliged.

Who sais MAGA women shot themselves in the foot? They dont want voting, they like fascism. Same for MAGA men. If they could withdraw from voting and let the king run the country uninterrupted, then they would gladly do so.

[–] robocall@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago

I guess all those blue haired feminists that refused to get married or change their last names still get to vote

[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I have nothing to back this up but it feels like this would hurt conservative women more than Democratic women? Like it feel more conservative to change to the husband's name, and liberal women usually keep theirs, no?

Not to mention like unmarried women are probably more common in the liberal side? Right?

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I suspect its more about creating extra paperwork hurdles to voting. More paperwork means it takes more time investment to be able to vote at all, thereby disenfranchising voters with less free time and Republicans have already done the math on that and enacted voter ID laws in many states because the math works out for them

[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

Oh that makes sense I guess. It reads like states don't have to do this? Or is that just odd working, is it required? Are blue states actually following through on these things? I know California did their own gerrymandering to fight back right?

[–] darkmogool@feddit.org 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Riiiight back to de medieval…

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago

I’d be willing to bet this will disenfranchise more republican women than democrat women. Democrats are way more likely to have a passport

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 11 points 5 hours ago

Wait, this is even dumber then it looks like. Under this crap unmarried women will be unaffected but the more traditional marriage types will be hooped. So this will remove the "trad" wife votes but not touch the ladies in say the local polycule. Gee I wonder if all the single/divorced women will be more or less likely to vote for the red party?

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 85 points 10 hours ago (6 children)

Easy solution, just don't marry anyone with a different last name.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 126 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

That's how MAGA does marriage, usually

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DakRalter@thelemmy.club 1 points 4 hours ago

I get the joke, but is it really so rare in the US for a woman to keep her own surname after marriage?

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 17 points 9 hours ago

[Sweet Home Alabama intensifies]

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 55 points 9 hours ago (7 children)

They'll go after each demographic whose voting habits favour democrats: Immigrants, women, educated, non-christian, poor, lbgtq+, young, non-white. Whichever ones you belong to, makes you a potential target of voter disenfranchisement.

[–] Flames5123@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago

Depends on the immigrants, sadly.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago

If convicted felons can be president, they should be allowed to vote too.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 33 points 9 hours ago

Wait til you hear why they created a “war” on “drugs”!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Last I checked the federal government cannot tell the states how to run their elections?

[–] nwtreeoctopus@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago

Watch them try to tie it to the 15th or some dumb bullshit.

Hell, they just need it in place long enough to bork a single election, right? All it takes is a slow judicial and they can achieve the goal.

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

I thought incest was illegal?

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 20 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (3 children)

Do the Republicans really think they are going to benefit from a requirement that disenfranchises people who don't have proof of citizenship like:

-Women who got married and took their husbands last name
-People who keep getting divorced over and over again
-People who have never travelled outside the US

Bear in mind that the people who are basically guaranteed to have their documents in order are:

-Recently naturalized citizens
-People who travel a lot
-Unmarried women
-People who graduated college

But hey, at least they are going to stop all the undocumented immigrants who already weren't allowed to register to vote in the first place.

This is going to be like how they attacked absentee voting without realizing that the majority of absentees were retirees and the military.

[–] spencerwi@feddit.org 13 points 6 hours ago

See, the thing Jim Crow and its "literacy tests" taught us is that you just need a rule that you can enforce on the wrong people, and then you just choose not to enforce it when it's convenient.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 19 points 8 hours ago

Do the Republicans really think

Not usually

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 12 points 8 hours ago

So your local lesbian coven of naturalized middle aged Latinas.

Just want to emphasize this hilarious line for anyone who doesn’t feel like reading the entire post. Please carry on.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

And here I thought I was clicking on a post where some MAGA 2nd amendment woman shot themselves in the foot with a gun, not once, but twice.

[–] sparkles@piefed.zip 23 points 9 hours ago

My circles have been discussing this one for a while. Not a coincidence that they are making it more difficult to get a passport.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 28 points 10 hours ago (14 children)

This is from USA Today. This is where political journalism is:

Will the SAVE America Act pass the Senate? Odds, predictions

The odds of the SAVE America Act passing the Senate and signed into law in 2026 are 12% according to the Polymarket betting odds, and the Kalshi market odds show 13.9% confidence that it will become law.

[–] sparkles@piefed.zip 38 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Betting on me losing my rights is wild.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 20 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

And yet it doesn’t even make the top ten fucked up shit for today.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›