Abstract
It has long been assumed that the act of marriage, or the ability to terminate a marital relationship are both moral and constitutional rights to be freely exercised by all citizens. For most persons, such is the case. But for millions of mentally disabled Americans, there have traditionally existed different domestic relation laws which include a widespread series of state prohibitions on the right to independently choose whether to get married, divorced or to seek an annulment of a marriage. These prohibitions have discriminated against handicapped persons, based solely on handicap. For instance, virtually all state laws historically attached labels to people with disabilities, referring to them as “idiots”, “feebleminded” or worse, then promulgated unfair and arbitrary prohibitions against their right to engage in domestic relations matters on a level equal to that of their peers who were not thought to be handicapped.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See, e.g., Wald, “Basic Personal and Civil Rights,” in THE MENTALLY RETARDED CITIZEN AND THE LAW (M. Kindred, J. Cohen, D. Penrod and D. Shaffer, eds., 1976) (hereinafter cited as THE MENTALLY RETARDED).
Gilhool, “The Right to Community Services,” in THE MENTALLY RETARDED 172, 174.
Skinner vs. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); see also Meyer vs. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) and Loving vs. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12(1967).
See, e.g., THE MENTALLY DISABLED AND THE LAW (2nd ed. S. Brakel & R. Rock, eds. 1971) at 266; Wald supra note 1, at 1; and, cases and materials cited in M. Burgdorf, “Marital and Family Rights,” in LEGAL RIGHTS OF MENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS (P. Friedman ed. 1979).
Zablocki vs. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 388 (1977) citing, inter alia, Carey vs. Population Services International, 431, U.S., at 686 Memorial Hospital vs. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. at 262–263, San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 16–17.
Id. at 383.
See, e.g., Maynard vs. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888); and, Skinner, supra note 3, at 541 (“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race.”)
See, e.g., the introduction to Subchapter 1.4 entitled Sterilization and the cases and materials cited therein (hereinafter cited as the “Introduction”).
Wald, supra note 1 at 1–7, 16–17; Kindregan, Sixty Years of Compulsory Eugenic Sterilization: Three Generations of Imbeciles and the Constitution of the United States, 43 CHI-KENT L. REV. 123, 139 (1966); Brakel and Rock supra note 4, at 226; and, introduction generally.
Shaman, “Persons who are Mentally Retarded: Their Right to Marry and Have Children,” 12 FAM. LQ. 61, 63 (1978).
Wald, supra note 1 at 8.
See. “The Right of the Mentally Retarded to Marry: A Statutory Evaluation,” 15 J. FAM. L. 463, 467 (1976–77).
This belief has been documented for years. See, e.g., “The Feeble-minded Parent: A Study of Ninety Family Cases,” 51 AM. J. MENTAL DEFICIENTY 644 (1947).
Supra note 12 at 468; See generally, Clark, LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS (1968), § 2.11 and 2.15.
Supra note 10.
H. Bass and M. L. Rein, DIVORCE OR MARRIAGE: A LEGAL GUIDE 24 (1976).
Wald, supra note 1 at 7–17.
See generally REVIEW OF STATE LEGISLATION infra. The question of whether a marriage is void or voidable has implications for property settlements. Because these implications apply equally to all persons, however, they will not be considered here. See generally. Clark supra note 13.
Bass and Rein, supra note 15.
Clark, supra note 12; see generally Mattinson, MARRIAGE AND MENTAL HANDICAP (1971).
California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
See, e.g., IDAHO CODE ANN. §32–201 (1963).
ldaho, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Wisconsin, Wyoming; see also Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands.
See Jacobs, “The Right of the Mentally Disabled to Marry: A Statutory Evaluation,” 15 J. OF FAM. L. 483, 465 (1976–77).
See McCurdy, “Insanity as a Ground for Annulment or Divorce in English and American Law,” 29 VIR. L. REV. 771, 772 (1943).
See Clark, LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS (1968), Section 2.15.
Id.
See UNIFORM MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ACT 298 (1974 version).
See, e.g., IDAHO CODE ANN. §29–101 (1967).
Supra note 8, at §201.
California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia.
Minnesota prohibits only persons under the guardianship or conservatorship of the Commission of Public Welfare, and only if the terms of the appointment specifically limit the right to marry. MINN. STAT. ANN. §517-.03 (Supp. 1978).
See, e.g., IOWA CODE ANN. §595.3(5) (“Mentally retarded persons or persons under guardianship as incompetents”).
See, e.g., N.C. GEN. STAT. §51–12 (1976); N.D. CENT. CODE §14–03–07 (Supp. 1977).
See, e.g., G.A. CODE ANN. §53–9901 (1974); MO. REV. STAT. §451.020(1977).
Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming.
See MICH STAT ANN. §25.6 (1974).
See, e.g., G.A. STATE. ANN. §53–9901 (1974).
See, e.g., N.D. CENT. CODE §14–03–28 (1971).
N.C. GEN. STAT. §51–12 (1976).
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia.
Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia.
New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee.
See, e.g., MICH. STAT. ANN. §25.81 (1974).
See, e.g., ALASKA STAT. §09.55.090(2) (1973).
See, e.g., ARK. STAT. ANN. §55–106 (1971).
See. e.g., Wightman, v. Wightman, 4 Johns. Ch. 343 (N.Y. 1820); Clark, supra note 6, at 97, 119–121.
Id., at §3.1.
See Am. Surety Co. v. Connor, 251 N.Y. 1, 166 N.W. 783 (1929).
California, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Guam.
See J. Calamere & J. Perillo, CONTRACTS 252 (2d ed. 1977).
See McCurdy, supra note 21, at 789–90.
See, e.g., ALASKA STAT. ANN. §09.55.070 (1973).
Delaware, District of Columbia, Kentucky, New York, Texas, Vermont, Virgin Islands.
Indiana, Oklahoma, Vermont, Washington. In addition the language of the Mississippi statute might be construed to deny a remedy. See Miss. Code Ann. §93–7–3 (1972).
P.R. LAWS ANN, tit. 31, §235 (Supp. 1977).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1982 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sales, B.D., Powell, D.M., Duizend, R.V. (1982). Marriage, Annulment and Divorce. In: Disabled Persons and the Law. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0794-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0794-6_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-0796-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-0794-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive