was sitting at the American Legion the other day and I overheard 2 older gentleman discussing how many funerals they had been too in the past year and I complained about how many weddings I had been to. The older gentleman chuckled and informed me there's really not a whole lot of difference between the 2.
While I clearly have very little interest in being burdened with long term commitments.Others do. I had somebody talk to me the other day about how their child has a disability and wants to get married and in all reality their kid really can't get married because even though The SCOTUS ruling that legalized marriage for those in the LGBT community has brought the issue of marriage equality to the forefront, the issue of people with disabilities and the right to marry without being penalized is just now bubbling to the surface.
Unfortunately, the issue of why people with disabilities are sometimes penalized if they get married is fairly complex. It does not affect every person with a disability but it does affect a significant chunk as it pertains to Supplemental Security Income ( SSI).
SSI is a needs-based federal program that helps people with disabilities (as well as people who are elderly) who have little or no income. It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. If two people receiving SSI get married, they will receive 25% less in benefits than they did as two individuals. The theory is that a couple can live on less income together than they would as individuals. In addition, even if a couple doesn't get legally married, they can be considered to be "holding out" if they are presenting themselves as a couple by SSI definition; for them, the same rules apply as for a married couple and they will have their benefits reduced. If only one person in the couple is receiving SSI, the benefit will still be reduced or they may no longer be eligible for it. In addition, there is also a resource limit; the amount of money you can have in the bank for an individual is $2,000 and for a couple it is only $3,000. Beyond these marriage-related SSI benefit and asset restrictions, eligibility for SSI in most states means eligibility for Medicaid. Medicaid covers services not covered by other health insurance plans such as a personal care aid, certain durable medical equipment, medications, and transportation to medical appointments. So anything affecting SSI eligibility may have a ripple effect.
The issue of marriage equality for the disability community is not a new one. It is heavily intertwined with the eugenics movement where people with disabilities were labeled as "undesirables" and forcibly held down and sterilized against their will, but also prohibited from marrying. In Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kansas, Minnesota, and Michigan, people with intellectual disabilities, mental disabilities, and epilepsy were prevented from marrying due to a series of laws that were passed in the early 20th century. Other states used legislation prohibiting anyone they considered to have a “genetic defect” from marrying. To this day, while in some instances the law is unenforced, most of these laws have never been repealed.
Removing the laws from the books has been argued against, because some members of the government seem to believe that it is protecting people with disabilities who they deem as, “unable to make their own decisions.” The people affected usually have intellectual disabilities, severe physical disabilities, or they lack the ability to communicate in a ‘typical’ way such as through vocalization. However, these laws are just the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to the government’s interference in deciding whether people with disabilities are able to marry or not.
I think it goes well beyond legalities and the mumbo jumbo of sensational legal verbiage as it establishes that a right to marry is contingent on a system of classism, which already seeks to keep many people with disabilities living in poverty. The Disability community faces an unemployment rate of over 80%, and while some of that is heavily embedded in workplace discrimination, a large part of it has to do with the idea that people with disabilities must rely on the government for their most basic of needs.
Living with a disability is incredibly expensive, This is why so many people with disabilities rely on programs such as SSI, SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, Section 8, Welfare, and food stamps. Those who qualify for these services are often caught in a catch-22. To pay the exorbitant cost of living with a disability, they need the programs that help us to pay the additional expenses. However, to remain on these programs they essentially have to remain living in poverty. For many, removing themselves from these programs is a matter of life and death.
When a person with a disability gets married, the government expects them to become the responsibility of their partner. The SSDI program is specifically for the adult children of people with a significant work history who have paid into the system. Usually, DAC (the Disabled Adult Children program) is awarded when a parent dies or retires. The entire program is embedded in the idea that the adult child is the burden of their parents. If the person were to marry, they are automatically kicked off the program because they are then expected to become the burden of their partner, unless they themselves also have a disability.
For those with non-disabled partners, the rules of such a program unfairly put pressure on said partner to not only care for their disabled spouse physically, but also monetarily. I know I have already said that having a disability is not cheap. However, unless a partner is quite wealthy there is just no way that they would be able to support their disabled partner if the services they were receiving were paying for the many expensive things people with disabilities require…things like equipment, home health care, and even medication.
When people with disabilities have to choose between their basic necessities and marriage, it is not like its all that much of an option
This particular philosophy also gives credence to the misconception that people with disabilities can not have relationships, are unable to freely express themselves.
This is emphasized by the fact that Social Security can make the determination that a couple is living as if they are married, and cut services like SSI and SSDI, whether there is a legal marriage or not. It can be incredibly dangerous for couples to live together when at least one person has a disability, and that person receives benefits, for this very reason.
Many arguments have been made stating that everyone loses access to programs like SSI, Food Stamps, and section 8 if they get married. With those arguments comes the idea that those people living with disabilities are just looking for a handout. Most people experience disability at some point in their lives. When those that become disabled later in life, or those who are older Americans and have similar needs to those who have disabilities, have to consider getting divorced simply to get needed healthcare and financial services, there is a problem with this system.
Imagining if some of the newly married LGBT or interracial couples had to get divorced in a few years for this very reason, places this entire issue into perspective.
It sounds harsh and unrealistic but. Yet, it is an all too real scenario for those who develop illnesses or impairments later in life.
People with disabilities need access to services. The exorbitant cost of living with a disability makes it impossible to turn those services down. SSI, Medicaid, SSDI/Medicare, Section 8, Food Stamps, and welfare are impacted, and typically lost, if the person on these programs gets married.
Marriage offers many benefits that are not available to single individuals. One of the most important, having your partner with you at the hospital is often denied to people with disabilities, even when a partner has power of attorney, there is a living will, or even with other papers attempting to denote the relationship status. Marriage universally protects couples and families and the fact that these protections are in many ways nonexistent when it comes to couples in which one or both individuals have a disability actually is fairly bothersome as at the end of the day, the issue really transcends race,gender, orientation, culture, etc. It can affect anyone with a disability, and maybe it might not be affecting a person right now. However, if their disability progresses, this may become an issue they face, and they may have to end up getting divorced. I know many people who have had disabilities progress or have acquired a disability later.
It can also affect Senior Citizens as they require more care, some of them have had no choice but to divorce their partners, if they want to remain in their home and in their comunities and marriage is not an option if they need services.
