Massachusetts couple denied foster care application over LGBTQ views, complaint says
Massachusetts couple denied foster care application over LGBTQ views, complaint says
Michael and Catherine Burke allege that the state’s Department of Children and Families discriminated against them for their Catholic viewpoints.
Michael and Catherine Burke allege that the state’s Department of Children and Families discriminated against them for their Catholic viewpoints.
A social worker’s report attached to the complaint said the couple was asked how they would feel if a child in their care identified as LGBTQ or struggled with their gender identity. Kitty Burke responded by saying “let’s take the T out of it” and called gender-affirming care “chemical castration,” according to the report. She also said, “I’m going to love you the same,” but that the child “would need to live a chaste life.” Both Kitty and Michael Burke expressed hesitation around using a transgender or nonbinary person’s preferred pronouns, the social worker’s report noted.
Michael Burke told the social worker he’d been to gay weddings and would “likely attend” his child’s wedding if they were LGBTQ, according to the report, and the couple said they wouldn’t kick a child out of their home for being LGBTQ or subject them to conversion therapy.
Following the interview, the social worker issued an “approval with conditions, specifically around religion and LGBTQIA++ related issues.” Their application was later denied by the department’s Licensing Review Team, the complaint states.
“If you give me an LGBTQ kid, I’m going to be a horrible parent. Wait, why did you deny my parenting application? This is discrimination!”
I don't know if I need to provide bonifides for being queer positive and not asking in bad faith, but why are there two pluses in that? It just makes me think of C++ and seems... jokey.
Yeah, that's why I generally prefer "queer". Plus, it's not an acronym, and reclaiming words is always good!
Many just say queer. Or LGBT. Companies and news organizations can't really settle on one thing to call us. Imo, LGBT+ gets the point across without being excessive.
This is why LGBTQ rights is so important. Imagine being a foster kids because of the US failed social safety net, only to be re homed in a religious bigoted house?! That's what the GOP wants for kids.
That’s exactly what happened to me as a kid. As a bonus, these religious nutjobs sexually abused their actual kid, and because I was just a foster kid, I wasn’t believed. Thank god my mom was able to get me out of that hell hole, but the trauma it caused me was so deep I didn’t even recognize how deep it was for almost 20 years.
Part of being a foster parent is agreeing to respect the child's situation, religious views, sexual orientation, etc. If I tell the state that I'm not going to take a kid to church if they're religious, I'm not getting approved. If I tell the state I'm going to teach potentially gay children that being gay is wrong, I'm not getting approved.
Holy shit. The foster system standing up for kids. Now there's something that sadly doesn't happen very often. I hope this couple get what they deserve
Which is zero children to indoctrinate by way of fear and hate.
You know, I didn't even think of this. I initially just thought "good, they might get a queer kid they'll abuse/neglect and thus shouldn't have them" but the whole limiting of the expansion of more shitbirds sure is a nice bonus.
In this case that being no foster kids
This is why conservatives should not be permitted to be foster parents. Child abuse is a foundational principle of conservatism.
As a child of conservatives, I can confirm...
They’re asking the court to get rid of that discriminatory denial so that they will not be barred from fostering or adopting children in the future, in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
Stop discriminating against our discrimination! Thanks for the good laugh, Michael and Catherine Burke.
The nerve of people to cry they were discriminated against for their views as if their views weren't the original discriminator... It's just mind boggling.
I agree no child should be placed in a home that would endanger them, but why is this even news? Couple needs to grow a pair and either change their views or just not adopt/foster. Go back to church or golf or whatever. Quit bothering the legal system. Perhaps they could volunteer for an LGBTQ organization and learn why "the T" doesn't make anyone different or lesser.
There are even dozens of Christian adoption and fostering agencies that will completely ignore any and all criminal histories if you are godly enough. In fact, being as hypocritical as possible seems to be a selling point for these agencies. If you preach God's love but have smashed a racists face into the concrete and lost your job over it and then shot your dog in the street while your wife defrauds the public and scams vulnerable people to the point of being sued by the state of Texas then you are exactly who they are looking to foster.
Edit: apologies, my fat fingers bungled it: if you are a racist who smashes black people's faces into the concrete
Becket previously represented Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch in Fulton v. Philadelphia, a 2021 Supreme Court case that unanimously ruled in favor of a Catholic adoption agency’s right to refuse to place children with LGBTQ couples.
This highlights the hypocrisy that is endemic in the Catholic church these days. The couple feels they were discriminated against in the approval process due to their anti-Trans views, yet they are using a lawyer who was happy to take the opposite view when a Catholic adoption agency wanted to discriminate against LGBTQ couples.
Unfortunately, a key difference is that it's the State doing it in this case, and a private agency before. That may end up being the difference here. It still doesn't change the fact that the Catholic Church seems much more Interested in politics and litigating than actually helping people.
It's not hypocrisy, it's their self-interest. They have a political agenda and are spending their lives doing what they can to enforce it, and that means helping their faction gain a foothold into every aspect of public life, especially raising children which they have said emphatically non-stop is all about forcing younger people who don't have the ability to reject them logically to adopt their beliefs. They only care about making more Christians and shutting out enemies of what they think constitutes Christianity, especially the LGBTQ+ community.
They're being entirely consistent in that light.
Yes, it would only be considered hypocritical if they are making the assertion that everyone should be allowed to foster children regardless of their beliefs and whether or not they intend to impose them on the children. But that's not what they are saying.
Yeah, child abuse isn’t an ideal trait to have if you intend to be the legal guardian of children.
Good, no child should be placed with parents who may discriminate against them for their natural state of being.
Fuck that couple in particular.
"Views", meaning they'll abandon their child if they ever come out or acknowledge that LGBTQ people exist...
Sounds like it's God's plan for them to stay the fuck away from children. First sensible thing that asshat's done.
Hahahaha! What a great take.
good? why should children be indoctrinated into bigotry
A social worker’s report attached to the complaint said the couple was asked how they would feel if a child in their care identified as LGBTQ or struggled with their gender identity. Kitty Burke responded by saying “let’s take the T out of it” and called gender-affirming care “chemical castration,” according to the report. She also said, “I’m going to love you the same,” but that the child “would need to live a chaste life.” Both Kitty and Michael Burke expressed hesitation around using a transgender or nonbinary person’s preferred pronouns, the social worker’s report noted.
Michael Burke told the social worker he’d been to gay weddings and would “likely attend” his child’s wedding if they were LGBTQ, according to the report, and the couple said they wouldn’t kick a child out of their home for being LGBTQ or subject them to conversion therapy
I think that until the church does a few strong demonstrations that they are not fiddling with children anymore - like, say, a public commitment to turn all allegations of child abuse over to secular authorities, like Biden just did with the military - that they should not be allowed access to children that they don't produce themselves.
Cat: They shouldn't even be allowed access to the children they do make themselves.
That's a much more difficult one to defend, from a legal or ethical or moral stance.
My opinion is that teaching a child religion as the only truth is child abuse, without telling the child that there are also people who believe there are no supernatural phenomena in the universe and explaining their best arguments for their viewpoint. It's no different than existing in a society of hunters and not teaching the kid to hunt. We win by knowing more, not by being stronger or tougher or purer in dog's eyes or whatever.
But my opinion is no basis for passing laws and such. When you're talking about who should take care of orphans, or of kids who have been subject to treatment that the law agrees is abuse, the mere having of bad viewpoints which are nonetheless legal is not sufficient grounds, if you ask me. Many religious people would consider my above opinion to be bad at best and hate speech at worst, for instance, but I think my wife and I would do alright taking care of a kid, if we had the time and resources to give.
But IF the people proposing to take a child into their care are regular attendees of the meetings of an organization that is known to protect pedophiles, that is definitely grounds to turn down that application on very solid legal footing, if you ask me.
I'll allow it.
So:
- They expressed bigoted views
- The SW passed them through anyway, "with conditions" which likely include "just don't give this couple any gay kids"
- They were ultimately denied for reasons not stated
- We actually have no other information about what they said apart from they don't like gay or trans kids
I think point 2 kinda invalidates the lawsuit, and point 4 is going to become extremely relevant when we find out they were fine with hitting kids who misbehaved or something.
The article calls this a "complaint" rather than a "lawsuit" so I guess this is moot.
The couple seems to think people have the right to foster by default, and the regulation sets out conditions for when this right can be revoked.
I'm not sure of the actual law, but it seems to me that the right to foster should be granted on a case by case basis. Regulation should set the necessary requirements, but the department should have the final say on the sufficient requirements. And the department should be allowed to revoke an application for any reason or even no (stated) reason.
Like, you shouldn't just have the right to foster by default.
The state cannot start being allowed to make determinations about what religious groups may and may not adopt children. Thats fundamentally on so many levels not fucking ok.
We can and should as long as it's based on relevant behavior not religious affiliation. If you don't believe in using proscribed antibiotics you should not be caring for kids, for example. I don't care if it's because your god told you they were evil or because you think your healing crystals are better.
the determination should be based on your ability to care for the child emotionally, physically and psychologically. if you can't do all 3, then you're unfit to be a parent.
I don't get why they think this is discriminatory when Massachusetts is mostly Catholic to begin with. Because they have a superiority complex, they are "true Catholics" I suppose? I mean even the papacy, USCCB and other large Catholic regulators have shifted their views on LGBTQ people. While a lot of dioceses still aren't yet uniamious on marriage equality or performing same-sex marriages within church premises and with church tradition/clergy, I think most now say the queer community at least deserves love, respect, and tolerance. Being trans or nonbinary is tricky, yes, but if you foster a child who considers a transition it's important to give them spaces to really evaluate the choice. Take them to therapy, support groups, and maybe some medical consultations to evaluate their options. With children especially but people in general shouldn't transition completely on a lark. Make sure they are confident in their choice. Still, these people couldn't even have a nuanced approach like that. What a shame.
It's a plant. These people are probably intentionally doing this to get a case before the US Supreme Court who will (they hope) overturn it. I'll bet they knew this would happen.
Massachusetts is not "mostly Catholic". Of all the states, it is next to last in religiousness.
I suppose I mean it is mostly Catholic as in the church has a large present in Massachusetts (where I live as well). Lots of people here grew up in the church, were baptised in Catholic tradition, did Catholic sacraments like confession, communion, or confirmation as children. Catholic charities play a large part of a lot of the social services here too. This survey is unusual because it doesn't seem to check off the qualities of religiosity. What are they praying about, what kind of God do they believe in, and how do they behave when they attend services? I'm quite skeptical since the supposedly most religious states are Southern red states, which are often religious in hallow, discriminatory ways. In the northeast culture, people are uncomfortable being seen as highly religious because we also want to seem rational, but that doesn't make us completely non-practicing. My point is, the judges, lawyers, and/or witnesses this couple will encounter likely also have a familiarity with Catholicism and can just as well find a doctrinal rebuttal to their bigotry in addition to legal ones.