Criminalizing Intimacy: Marriage Law, Disability, and Structural Stigma In Connecticut, 1895–1967

Background and Purpose:
This study examines how law operates as a mechanism of structural stigma through a historical analysis of marriage restrictions targeting individuals labeled “epileptic, imbecile, and feeble-minded” in Connecticut between 1895 and 1967. While prior research has emphasized eugenic policies such as sterilization and institutionalization, less attention has been paid to marriage law as a site of governance regulating intimacy and reproduction. This study asks: (1) how did marriage law construct and regulate disability, (2) through what legal and institutional mechanisms did it produce structural stigma, and (3) how did its meaning shift prior to repeal in 1967?

Methods:
Using a socio-legal historical design, this study combines doctrinal legal analysis with thematic and critical discourse analysis of archival materials, including state statutes, appellate decisions (e.g., Gould v. Gould), legislative hearing transcripts, and historical newspaper coverage. Doctrinal analysis traces how courts interpreted state authority over marriage, while iterative coding identifies recurring constructions of disability, public policy, and social risk across legal and public texts.

Results:
Findings show that the 1895 statute criminalized intimacy and reproduction, mandating prison sentences while preserving marriage as a legally valid status. This reveals a distinctive regulatory paradox: individuals were subject to criminal punishment even as their marital relationships remained legally intact, illustrating how law disciplined behavior without destabilizing family institutions. Judicial opinions further reinforced this framework by framing disability as a population-level threat and legitimizing eugenic reasoning through the language of public policy and “common knowledge.” At the same time, public discourse was not uniform; newspaper coverage included contemporaneous critiques and, over time, reflected a shift toward developmental and social welfare perspectives. By 1967, legislative debates increasingly characterized the law as “archaic” and stigmatizing, emphasizing the capacity of individuals with disabilities to “lead normal lives,” although paternalistic assumptions persisted.

Conclusions and Implications:
This study identifies marriage law as an underexamined mechanism of structural stigma and demonstrates how legal and public discourses co-produce evolving meanings of disability. The findings highlight how regulatory logics governing intimacy and family formation can persist even after formal repeal. For social work, this underscores the importance of historically grounded, anti-oppressive approaches to policy and practice, particularly in addressing contemporary regulations that continue to shape the intimate lives of people with disabilities.