Posted on 05/08/2013 3:14:59 AM PDT by grundle
PORT JEFFERSON, N.Y. (AP) -- With the beaming smiles of newlyweds, Paul Forziano and Hava Samuels hold hands, exchange adoring glances and complete each other's sentences. Their first wedding dance, he recalls, was to the song "Unchained ..." ''Melody," she chimes in.
They spend their days together in the performing arts education center where they met. But every night, they must part ways. Forziano goes to his group home. His wife goes to hers.
The mentally disabled couple is not allowed to share a bedroom by the state-sanctioned nonprofits that run the group homes — a practice the newlyweds and their parents are now challenging in a federal civil rights lawsuit.
"We're very sad when we leave each other," Forziano says. "I want to live with my wife, because I love her."
The couple had been considering marriage for three years before tying the knot last month, and they contend in their lawsuit that they were refused permission from their respective group homes to live together as husband and wife. The couple's parents, also plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said they have been seeking a solution since 2010.
"It's not something we wanted to do, it's something we had to do," said Bonnie Samuels, the mother of the bride.
The lawsuit contends Forziano's facility refused because people requiring the services of a group home are by definition incapable of living as married people, and it says Samuels' home refused because it believes she doesn't have the mental capacity to consent to sex.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I don’t want to rain on their bliss, but how can two retarded adults enter into a binding contract?
Could these folks buy property? Could they enter into an auto loan contract?
Just curious.
My question is, who will take care of their children?
My guess is the couple in this article ended up in group homes likely due to advanced age of their parents or their parents planning ahead. This case would have wide implications for all with disabilities and their right to marry. Marriages with disabilities of spouses involved can and do work. The added cost to the state for this couple would be nil.
If they were homosexual the group homes would be falling over themselves to set them up and the zero would call telling them how brave they are to be “so retatded and yet...”[snark]
It does bring up the point: who actually married them and should they have done so? They are obviously incapable of living on their own, so how is this contract valid?
Fact is that they are married. They should not be denied what they can enjoy of each other. It should not take too many $$ resources to accomodate them.
not necessarily. possibly establishing a precedence of allowing co-habitation in the group home? and is his home an all-male, hers an all-female? (I forget already what the article said. :P). what's next, then?
I don't know the solution, but I can see both sides.
and you're right...we don't know to what degree these two are mentally-challenged.
But should a nonprofit group home set up to accommodate only single and single-sex clients be forced to accommodate a married couple?
Assisted Living facilities do have married couples living in them where both due to age or disabilities can no longer care for themselves fully. It doesn't mean they need 24/7 supervision just that things like meals etc need to be provided.
I married my girlfriend 28 years ago who is a quadriplegic. Ten years into our marriage I got hit with a disabling condition. Thankfully though I can still take care of our basic needs including cooking. What 5-10 years down the road will bring we don't know. If/when time comes we can no longer live alone what then? BTW both of us are former health care services related workers. Things have changed drastically in the past decade or so and it sounds like New York is behind the curve. They could likely get by OK in a group home for disabled married couples is what I'm saying. Two disabled spouses is not all that uncommon.
IF they are taking state or federal funds? Yes. If they are a private NPO ran by other outside groups such as churches? NO. The ADA in cases where government funding is involved should apply. But where it is not involved the ADA should not apply.
I have never heard of a mentally retarded person being homosexual. They are much too smart for that.
There is a lot of indiscriminate sexual activity in institutions, it just can’t be completely prevented.
Their parents could have signed off on the contract as their power of attorney/conservator.
Who says they will have any?
There is birth control.
As a taxpayer (so presumably supporting these people), my position is that I should not have to fork out more money to fund anything beyond the basics. In particular, they should not be having children that I then have to pay for. (This goes double for welfare recipients.)
That said, it seems that there should be some measure of basic human compassion that would allow them to live together. I would think that with all the social services workers we have, the could come up with some solution to this.
If they can get past this little obstacle, I suspect they both will live happily ever after together........good for them!
I presume they are taking federal funds, but I still don’t see how or why that should pertain. I’d personally do away with the excesses of the ADA and with federal funding for many, many things. But the idea that a social service agency can’t provide any government-funded services to anyone unless it provides the said services for everyone seems particularly baseless to me.
You sure can’t mandate sterilization, and considering how many people who can manage to live on their own can’t manage the faithful use of birth control, I think you might be expecting a bit much in this circumstance.
One of the implants, perhaps. Lasts several years, goes in the upper arm, requires no special care after the insertion point heals.
Seems like it would be absolutely ideal in this case, since there’s nothing to forget or mess up, only basic wound care for a few days after it’s put in.
Bump
Yeah, you’re probably right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.