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.
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.
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.
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..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?