Mentally disabled newlyweds fight to live together
- Thread starter Paladin-X
- Start date
It's a state-sanctioned institution and is therefore subject to the ADA. They should be allowed to share a room or bed or whatever so long as they're not causing any problems, which it doesn't sound like they really would.
Why do people have to come up with such eloquent excuses as "Might not be mentally capable of consenting to sex" when they really just want to say "The thought of two autsies bumping uglies disgusts me, therefore I wish to prohibit it by any means."
Why do people have to come up with such eloquent excuses as "Might not be mentally capable of consenting to sex" when they really just want to say "The thought of two autsies bumping uglies disgusts me, therefore I wish to prohibit it by any means."
I don't know if it's a matter of the facility staff being disgusted. All those who have suggested that in the article were simply putting words in the mouths of others. Quite the unnecessary and unwarranted assumption to make, as touching as the story is, and probably added in as a way to frame the program facilitators as discriminatory and have them demonized. Just because they were quoted for coming up with stupid sounding excuses for rejecting their requests, doesn't necessarily mean they are crazy or cruel people who harass and secretly discriminate against their residents. It happens, but it is a little overly ironic for a place that cares for a large number of disabled people to be managed by people who are bitter and insensitive towards the disabled to that extent. I'll admit that's the impression I got from the article as well, but I don't think that's the first conclusion that I would jump to. People will make up all sorts of stupid sounding (often patronizing too, like in these examples) stuff as a last ditch effort to provide some sort of reasoning in hopes of getting people to give up.
I think the homes are probably just worried because they wouldn't know how to deal with any legal/financial complications that would arise from having the couple living at their facilities. It's a gap in their expertise because they lack experience with such cases, even though one would think that it would be easy enough for the facility to adapt. I think it's a combination of apprehensiveness towards carrying the additional responsibility (perhaps without extra reimbursement from the state (? idk)), and laziness towards having to think through and develop new ways to work around the change.
I think the homes are probably just worried because they wouldn't know how to deal with any legal/financial complications that would arise from having the couple living at their facilities. It's a gap in their expertise because they lack experience with such cases, even though one would think that it would be easy enough for the facility to adapt. I think it's a combination of apprehensiveness towards carrying the additional responsibility (perhaps without extra reimbursement from the state (? idk)), and laziness towards having to think through and develop new ways to work around the change.
If the issue is consent and they both are considered competent and capable enough to consent to marriage, then technically, they should have the capacity to consent to sex. I am not knowledgeable about their IQ and what it means for their competence in social and physical acts, but if marriage was permitted, then sex would of course be permitted. If they didn't think they could make decisions about physical intimacy, then why allow them to marry? It seems contradictory.
Yes, this... and I completely agree that the media has framed this story as persecution to spark outrage (as usual).
Having sex is one thing, living together in a state-controlled home is one thing, but if they're mentally challenged to the point where they can't manage money or communicate properly, then are we supposed to trust them to use birth control? What happens if she gets pregnant? There's no way that these two would be able to look after a child. What if she doesn't want to give up the baby? Could they force her to get an abortion? Would their baby be normal? Who would take care of it? What about sexual assault laws? It is still illegal to rape your wife (or husband).
I think the big issue here is that there are a lot of 'what ifs' that nobody at either place is equipped, budgeted or willing to deal with.
But the contradiction is, if all you've mentioned is true for this couple, then they shouldn't have been permitted to get married. By allowing them to be married, you've given them the right to operate as any normal couple. So, if there are so many questions about their ability to care for themselves, and are not capable of learning and developing skills for independent living, then they shoudn't have been permitted to tie the knot. If everyone has so many questions about their competencies, then marriage should be out of the question.
So, they've contradicted themselves by permitting them to get married but not permitting them to have sex.
just because they got married doesn't mean that their need for assistance has stopped. That could be in the form of assistance with the bills, communicating, etc. they obviously still need help to get a place to live. Getting married doesn't mean you are suddenly a self sufficient adult. Also we can still come to find that allowing them to get married in the first place could have been a mistake.
Well that is a bit of a pickle, isn't it?
I think it's hard to pass judgement on this particular case without knowing the particulars of why these two are in homes. How much assistance do they need? What levels are their mental handicaps? If one has, say the capacity of a five year old, I would question why they were even allowed to get married. If it's the case they are more like teens or just have difficulty with decisions, I don't think it would be right to tell them they can't be intimate with their own spouse. Though, if they were allowed to be married I would assume that means at some point they were considered capable of making that commitment and consenting to it, so what changed?
I think it's hard to pass judgement on this particular case without knowing the particulars of why these two are in homes. How much assistance do they need? What levels are their mental handicaps? If one has, say the capacity of a five year old, I would question why they were even allowed to get married. If it's the case they are more like teens or just have difficulty with decisions, I don't think it would be right to tell them they can't be intimate with their own spouse. Though, if they were allowed to be married I would assume that means at some point they were considered capable of making that commitment and consenting to it, so what changed?
Ideally, they should be able to live together as a family.
Realistically, the group home program isn't set up to house spouses.
the story isn't just about two people being married and being denied a home together--they both require significant support, neither is independent. What happens if they have children? Who takes care of their kids? Or does the state just yank them away and place the hypothetical children in foster care?
Realistically, the group home program isn't set up to house spouses.
the story isn't just about two people being married and being denied a home together--they both require significant support, neither is independent. What happens if they have children? Who takes care of their kids? Or does the state just yank them away and place the hypothetical children in foster care?
I read a slightly more expanded version here:
http://news.msn.com/us/disabled-couple-denied-chance-to-live-together-by-group-homes
There are other group homes that allow married couples, they are just currently full. The one that Hava (the bride) is staying in, is a female only group home. Which is understandable that they don't allow men to stay there, married or otherwise. Although it is somewhat insulting to deny the request in part because they do not believe her to have the mental capacity to consent to sex.
[MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION] brings up a good point. What if they have a child? If they don't have the mental capacity to properly care for themselves, how can they care for a child? What is fair to the potential children the could have, rather than what is fair to the parents?
http://news.msn.com/us/disabled-couple-denied-chance-to-live-together-by-group-homes
There are other group homes that allow married couples, they are just currently full. The one that Hava (the bride) is staying in, is a female only group home. Which is understandable that they don't allow men to stay there, married or otherwise. Although it is somewhat insulting to deny the request in part because they do not believe her to have the mental capacity to consent to sex.
[MENTION=5090]Apone[/MENTION] brings up a good point. What if they have a child? If they don't have the mental capacity to properly care for themselves, how can they care for a child? What is fair to the potential children the could have, rather than what is fair to the parents?
That was the point of my last post. Which is why the decision is a contradiction. If they didn't think them capable enough to live on their own and take care of themselves independently, then technically according to the criteria they are using to evaluate their fitness for adulthood and self sufficiency, they shouldn't have been permitted to get married.
Last edited:
Honestly, if it was considered even remotely socially acceptable to sterilize mentally handicapped people, that would solve about half of those worries by removing potential children from the equation entirely. That would leave the potential for sexual assault as the only real issue.
Of course, that's not the way things are. And all of those worries are very real possibilities.
If they want to begin to answer those questions, they're going to need to bring in a lot of people for their discussion of the lawsuit. Especially the parents and family of the couple - the people whose interests are most closely aligned with their interests and who are also mentally competent and capable of making reasonable decisions on their behalf. I'm sure if you introduced those potentialities to them they'd be singing a much different tune than the article describes.
e: I also noticed that there are other homes in the area accepting couples, and the fact that they're full-up or too far away from their families. What struck me is that if these homes exist, then the people administrating the homes must have some confidence that those things don't happen, either because of safeguards they've put in place or because of the perceived innate nature of their tenants. While I understand that it's a mite unreasonable to suggest that a home change a very important aspect of its rule structure for the sake of a single couple, I have to ask, Why are those things the concern for the homes in question when other homes are already accepting of couples, apparently without trouble?
Last edited:
I live in Indiana. They sterilize mentally disabled individuals who have children, here. It happened to one of my clients. The state took her baby and paid for her to have her tubes tied. She says she made the decision, and maybe she did, but its odd that the state can deign her incapable of raising a child, yet capable of making that decision..