
There has been a lot of debate in this country in the past 10 years about marriage. Federal and state courts have been issuing rulings on whether homosexuals should be allowed to be legally married. State legislatures have passed laws defining marriage, and voters have (thus far) held up the definition marriage on statewide referendums across the country.
The underpinning of all this debate has been the value of marriage to a society. But sometimes in public life, in public policies, the promotion of the institution of marriage can be in conflict with the idea of providing government services in a fair and consistent manner. Sometimes, the protection of the tax payers purse strings can work against the institution of marriage.
Case in point.
Steve McNutt and Candy Adcock were sweethearts back in grade school, almost 50 years ago. After high school, they went their separate ways. Candy went on to get married and Steve went on the the University of Michigan to get a degree in engineering.
Four years ago, a mutual friend brought the old friends back together again. Adcock, now a widow, and McNutt reignited their old friendship and it eventually blossomed into a romance. The two of them wanted to get married, to make their commitment official not only before God, but to the state as well.
"I loved her," said McNutt, 59, sitting in his Ann Arbor condominium recently. "And I was always looking for somebody. She's part of my life and I'm part of her life."
Be he couldn't make the commitment. Neither could she. To do so would be to place their independence and their very health in peril.
Both Steve and Candy are severely disabled with cerebral palsy. They both have Medicaid insurance through the state of Michigan, a program that pays for a personal attendant services. These aids are the mechanism that has allowed each of them to live independently.
"The bottom line for me is if I don't have someone to assist me, I don't get out of bed in the morning," (Adcock) said. "I don't eat or use the bathroom. All those basic things don't get done without those people to help me."
If they were to marry, their combined incomes would make them ineligible for Medicaid and would, in turn, cost them the use of their personal attendants. Their health and safety would be at risk without them.
So they had no choice but to not get married. They just live together in an apartment, devoted to one another, but unable to make the commitment formal out of fear of losing what they need to survive. And in our country, due to the ways our laws are written, this is a decision made by too many couples who are poor, elderly, or disabled. Out of fear of losing benefits, they remain unmarried. And if you believe that society benefits from marriage, it would logically follow that society suffers along with them.
I believe in marriage. I also believe that our government should be able to find a way to make it easier for people like Steve and Candy to believe in it to.
"When they change the law, we will get married. We will never give up," said Adcock.
It's a shame they can't get married now.

0 comments:
Post a Comment