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.
"This is why protecting traditional families is so important. Imagine being a foster kids because of the US failed social safety net, only to be re homed in a LGBT groomer house?! That's what the GOP wants for kids."
I literally just changed two things and it went 180 degrees on the other extremist side of the spectrum. Do with that info as you wish
And with such a simple change, you turned it into a disgusting and bigoted lie, when the person you responded to was completely accurate.
Do with that info as you wish
You mean put it into proper context, look at the stats, and acknowledge you're full of shit? Sure thing! But you won't let facts get in the way of your feelings amirite?
Given that the vast majority of child exploitation happens in heterosexual, traditional families... I'm going to call bullshit. Changing words does not change the reality of child exploitation, nor does it excuse your hiding behind a bigoted little stance because something something tradition.
If tradition involves bigotry or hate, tradition can fuck all of the way off, forever.
You changed two things and into something imaginary. There is no such thing as an "LGBT groomer house." You can't force a child to be gay or trans no matter how much you want to.
You might as well say "only to be rehomed in a dragon's den." It would make about the same amount of sense.
Uhhhh what? One, "traditional families" aren't anti LGBTQ by default. Second, LGBTQ parents aren't groomers. (can LGBTQ individuals be terrible humans just like everyone else? Yes!) Third, asking a foster family if they hate LGBTQ people is critical for the safety of foster children because mathematically 10% will be LGBTQ. And since there's no "Gaydar" to tell you can't risk putting any child with them!
You didn't prove anything except how ignorant you are. Do with that info as you wish
Could you be less subtle next time? I almost didn't notice the transphobia.
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
Sounds like the kinda family that if their teenager says they're gay, will abuse and abandon them.
So yeah, they can go suck an egg.
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.
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.
Thank goodness the system works. Michael is an absolute scumbag.
This got me to open the article again and search for what this may reference. I didn't see anything in particular about him being worse than her. Did I miss it? I admit that I mostly scanned and didn't read comprehensively because I don't care about these people and their bullshit views. Fuck anyone who says "Let's take the T out."
Same, I'd love to know what Michael in particular did or said. I have a feeling the lawsuit is going to reveal a lot more of that, though.
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...
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.
Or America is really just fucked up
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
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.
Permanently Deleted
"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.
TIL discrimination is a good thing
Discrimination against the discriminators is kosher.
I mean, literally "to discriminate" just means to choose, or apply a filter to your choices, based on your preferences. This is a good thing to do. In fact it's an unavoidable thing to do if you want to continue to be alive existing in the world.
The way it's most often used is "to discriminate against [a vulnerable group]", so that's how the word is usually interpreted.
These people do not belong to a vulnerable group. So what we're doing here is protecting a vulnerable group, not discriminating against straight white people, the group that has the most power here.
Only when it's the right type of discrimination.
Yes? If you choose to be a homophobic racist sexist asshole, you should be discriminated against.
Sexual orientation, gender, sex, skin color are all things you don't choose, you're just born that way.
The moment it happens to rainbow color hair folks it's a crime though
They said it's for all of humanity to read. They didn't say it is all of humanity's representation of a holy doctrine. Relax.
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.
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.
Permanently Deleted
Wait what?
Of course I should be able to discriminate people if they argue for intolerance. Popper, anyone?
Value in tradition? What traditions are these people valuing?
Kids can’t “identify” as “lgtv” or whatever other shit, they get indoctrinated into that
I'm sure you know this and you're just a troll. But just as a reference to other readers, I'd like to remind everybody that biology supports LGBT kids, not bigots.
The only good thing to come out of comments like that is my block button gets used quickly.
So who indoctrinated you into heterosexuality? Because if sexuality is purely environmental, then you're suggesting that but for your indoctrination as straight you would otherwise potentially be LGBTQ+.
Could also just change whenever you wanted, if that were the case. But no, I deliberately endured nearly a decade of pain because I 'chose' to be bi, in their words, lol.
Not to discount your opposition to their point, which should be opposed, but you do know that sexuality is pretty fluid for a vast number of people along the Kinsey scale, right? For a lot of people, they ARE heterosexual because they are indoctrinated that way from an early age. Not everyone capable of being sexually fluid identifies that way.
You mean like how religion indoctrinates people and hides actual pedophiles while pointing the finger elsewhere?
And the long history of abuse of children by nuns and priests in children's homes and religious schools/ facilities?
Being LGBT isn't something you just wake up and choose to 'identify' as. You don't wake up and decide, hey I'm gonna be gay! It's just part of who you are.
Religion is a choice and something that can and does indoctrinate people. Maybe look in the right direction and you'll see who the actual bad guys are.
Biologically speaking, gay people are born that way.
No one is born religious.
So tell me again about indoctrination.