Disabled newlyweds forced to live apart

[HotD]

Do the disabled enjoy a right to be married? Yes, because a person's mental capacity hasn't ever been an issue for marriage.

Do the disabled enjoy a right to live together as married? Apparently not, according to their respective group home management.

Disabled newlyweds forced to live apart

 

[rambone]

Do the disabled enjoy a right to be married? Yes, because a person's mental capacity hasn't ever been an issue for marriage.

The state has denied marriage to people for all sorts of reasons, including race, disease, mental illness, age, color, relation to the potential spouse, or no reason at all. Earlier in the 20th century it was popular to not only deny sick people a marriage license, but also abduct them and forcibly perform medical procedures to sterilize them. The government didn't like letting "deficient" human beings reproduce. The American eugenics model was soon exported to Europe.

 

[steveh_131]

What, you want to let them get married?

What's next? Should we let people marry dogs? What about lamps? Can they marry lamps? What about 5-year olds? Should they be allowed to get married?

Am I doing this right?

 

[CarmelHP]

Apparently the got married. What's at issue is what type of accommodations the taxpayers should be forced to provide them. They could be living together right now if their parents spent their time and money providing for them rather than suing the taxpayer. You guys sure love public welfare handouts when it suits you.

 

[steveh_131]

Apparently the got married. What's at issue is what type of accommodations the taxpayers should be forced to provide them. They could be living together right now if their parents spent their time and money providing for them rather than suing the taxpayer. You guys sure love public welfare handouts when it suits you.

The OP posed two questions.

I was responding to the first, not the second. And not in a serious manner.

 

[steveh_131]

Also, I don't believe there is any suing of the tax-payer going on here. These are non-profit homes, not government homes. Or am I mistaken?

That said, nobody is being 'forced' to do anything. They are living on someone else's property and need to follow the rules for as long as they reside there.

 

[lucky4034]

Apparently the got married. What's at issue is what type of accommodations the taxpayers should be forced to provide them. They could be living together right now if their parents spent their time and money providing for them rather than suing the taxpayer. You guys sure love public welfare handouts when it suits you.

Hard to argue against this point

 

[Survivalcookie]

Do the disabled enjoy a right to be married? Yes, because a person's mental capacity hasn't ever been an issue for marriage.

Do the disabled enjoy a right to live together as married? Apparently not, according to their respective group home management.

Disabled newlyweds forced to live apart

They are supported by the state and the state has rules...let the parents take them in and who will provide for the care and up bringing of any children that result from this marriage? The parents should be ashamed of them selves for filing the law suite...you want the state to take care of you and your family then you abide by their rules..

 

[jedi]

Also, I don't believe there is any suing of the tax-payer going on here. These are non-profit homes, not government homes. Or am I mistaken?

That said, nobody is being 'forced' to do anything. They are living on someone else's property and need to follow the rules for as long as they reside there.

See post below. While the homes are not 'state run' (ie. have state employees) the state does support/pay this organization for the work they do.

They are supported by the state and the state has rules...let the parents take them in and who will provide for the care and up bringing of any children that result from this marriage? The parents should be ashamed of them selves for filing the law suite...you want the state to take care of you and your family then you abide by their rules..

 

[steveh_131]

See post below. While the homes are not 'state run' (ie. have state employees) the state does support/pay this organization for the work they do.

I'd imagine it is something like a nursing home. Not every patient there has their bill paid by the government. How do you know these parents do? They might be private-pay, or their insurance might cover it.

 

[jkfletcher]

What, you want to let them get married?

What's next? Should we let people marry dogs? What about lamps? Can they marry lamps? What about 5-year olds? Should they be allowed to get married?

Am I doing this right?

I love lamp!!

If they can get social security benefits, why can't they get a small apartment and have someone(parents?) manage the money and check in on them? Easier for the parents to have them out of sight and just sue someone? Either way, it's going to cost the taxpayers apparently.

 

[eldirector]

So, move out of the group home (it is voluntary, right?) and move in someplace else.

If I was living in a male-only college dorm and married someone who was living in the female-only dorm, then we would not be allowed to move in with each other. Even if on a state (taxpayer) scholarship at a state (taxpayer) university. We would be expected to move to someplace that allowed couples.

Duh.

That, or maybe consider your living arrangements BEFORE you get married?

 

[CarmelHP]

Also, I don't believe there is any suing of the tax-payer going on here. These are non-profit homes, not government homes. Or am I mistaken?

That said, nobody is being 'forced' to do anything. They are living on someone else's property and need to follow the rules for as long as they reside there.

Since the article stated Medicare is picking up the tab, I'm quite sure their living arrangements are coming out of the taxpayer's pocket.

 

[steveh_131]

Since the article stated Medicare is picking up the tab, I'm quite sure their living arrangements are coming out of the taxpayer's pocket.

I don't see that in this article, although it may very well be true.

Nevertheless, I think the homes (as private entities) have every right to set rules for married couples.

 

[CarmelHP]

I'd imagine it is something like a nursing home. Not every patient there has their bill paid by the government. How do you know these parents do? They might be private-pay, or their insurance might cover it.

If they're private pay, then they just move somewhere else right?

But wait:

"Legal experts are watching the case closely as a test of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which says, in part, that "a public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures ... to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability." The group homes are licensed as nonprofits by the state and receive Medicaid funding on behalf of their clients."

and

"Also named in the lawsuit is the state Office of Persons With Developmental Disabilities, which the couple claims sided with the agencies in refusing to accommodate their wishes and has not done enough to find a solution."

and

"The Social Security Administration offers disability benefits when a person's IQ is below 70."

Right in the article is why I don't think the families are paying out of pocket.

 

[jedi]

^this...

ding, ding, ding chicken dinner!!!!

 

[steveh_131]

If they're private pay, then they just move somewhere else right?

Absolutely.

But wait:

"Legal experts are watching the case closely as a test of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which says, in part, that "a public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures ... to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability." The group homes are licensed as nonprofits by the state and receive Medicaid funding on behalf of their clients."

and

"Also named in the lawsuit is the state Office of Persons With Developmental Disabilities, which the couple claims sided with the agencies in refusing to accommodate their wishes and has not done enough to find a solution."

and

"The Social Security Administration offers disability benefits when a person's IQ is below 70."

Right in the article is why I don't think the families are paying out of pocket.

They may not be. It isn't clear on that. Doesn't really matter, we agree on the real issue.

ETA: Maybe I am misunderstanding this. These kids probably receive disability. But your first two quotes are simply the grounds for the lawsuit, correct? If these homes were not non-profit entities and if they did not receive payments from medicaid for some of their clients then they wouldn't be considered 'public entities' and the lawsuit couldn't hold the federal agencies responsible. This doesn't necessarily mean that medicare is paying the specific bill for these two people. Right?

 

[CarmelHP]

Absolutely.



They may not be. It isn't clear on that. Doesn't really matter, we agree on the real issue.

ETA: Maybe I am misunderstanding this. These kids probably receive disability. But your first two quotes are simply the grounds for the lawsuit, correct? If these homes were not non-profit entities and if they did not receive payments from medicaid for some of their clients then they wouldn't be considered 'public entities' and the lawsuit couldn't hold the federal agencies responsible. This doesn't necessarily mean that medicare is paying the specific bill for these two people. Right?

I doubt they'd have any standing if these two were not on public benefits. You can believe whatever you like, but if they were private payers, they'd just move. You would have to be very gullible to believe otherwise.

 

[HotD]

They certainly have a right to be married, otherwise they would have been denied said right, or a judge would have annulled the marriage.

What precedent exists for married people denied the ability to live with each other? Did they commit a crime, or are under a civil commitment order that bars their living as husband and wife?

This is a civil right these people possess, and civil rights cannot be infringed upon, unless there is an overriding public interest into doing so. Should people residing in taxpayer funded, public housing, be also denied from living with their spouses and possibly minor children as well?

I've been waiting for someone to state the obvious: Why hasn't their respective Case Workers/Social Workers work to relocate both these individuals to a more appropriate venue before this came to court?

 

[Denny347]

There is no right for married people to be able to live together. The nerve of some of these freedom haters.