╌>

Massachusetts bans Catholic couple from fostering children due to beliefs on gender, sexuality, lawsuit claims

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  last year  •  38 comments

By:   Anders Hagstrom (Fox News)

Massachusetts bans Catholic couple from fostering children due to beliefs on gender, sexuality, lawsuit claims
Massachusets has banned a devout Catholic couple from fostering children in the state, citing their beliefs on gender, sexuality and marriage.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


A devout Catholic couple claims that Massachusetts banned them from participating in the state foster care system due to their religious beliefs.

In a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday by religious liberty group Becket Law, Mike and Catherine "Kitty" Burke specifically claim the state restricted them from fostering children in the state due to their adherence to Catholic teachings on gender, sexuality and marriage.

"After months of interviews and training, and after years of heartbreak, we were on the verge of finally becoming parents," the couple said in a statement. "We were absolutely devastated to learn that Massachusetts would rather children sleep in the hallways of hospitals than let us welcome children in need into our home."

The lawsuit claims that the state listed only one reason for denying the Burke's foster application, which was that they "would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA."

Mike and Catherine "Kitty" Burke were banned from fostering children in Massachusetts due to their religious beliefs, according to a lawsuit.(Becket Law)

"As faithful Catholics, the Burkes believe that all children should be loved and supported, and they would never reject a child placed in their home. They also believe that children should not undergo procedures that attempt to change their God-given sex, and they uphold Catholic beliefs about marriage and sexuality," the lawsuit continues.

The lawsuit names Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary Kate Walsh, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families Linda Spears, and others as defendants.

Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary Kate Walsh is named as the lead plaintiff in Becket Law's lawsuit.(Mass.gov)

The lawsuit includes a copy of the letter the Burkes received notifying them that their application to be foster parents was denied.

"In order to be licensed as a foster/adoptive parent, a foster/pre-adoptive parent applicant must meet the following requirements: (1) A foster/pre-adoptive parent applicant must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Department the ability: (d) to promote the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of a child placed in his or her care, including supporting and respecting a child's sexual orientation or gender identity; (e) to respect and make efforts to support the integrity of a child's racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious background," the letter reads, quoting the state regulations for Standards for Licensure as a Foster/Pre-adoptive Parent.

Becket filed the lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In addition, The CF Foster Child Bill of Rights states that every child "shall be treated with respect by DCF staff, foster parents and providers without regard to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion and/or disability," it continues.

Fox News reached out to the Massachusetts Health and Human Services and Massachusetts Department of Children & Families for comment, but neither immediately responded.

The lawsuit seeks to prohibit Massachusetts from using LGBTQ accommodations to decline to issue foster licenses to religious applicants. It further seeks that the Burkes' application be granted and that they receive "nominal and compensatory damages" from the defendants.



Anders Hagstrom is a reporter with Fox News Digital covering national politics and major breaking news events. Send tips to Anders.Hagstrom@Fox.com, or on Twitter: @Hagstrom_Anders.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    last year

This case is an absolute loser for Massachusetts.

We all knew that they would try to tell us what to think & believe. After all, they once gave up their ability to think for themselves.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    last year

the catholic church already fosters LGBTQ people with their dogma. there's 3 LGBTQ people in my family, that I know of, and they're all children of my ultra conservative and strict catholic cousins. it's a very sensitive subject for them, which makes it a lot of fun for me at family functions. my kids are connected to them on social media which keeps the family closer. religious dogma applied to GOP created wedge issues is a loser at the polls for republicans. please continue.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1    last year

Once again, Republicans don't have a fucking thing to do with it. This may come as a shock, but not everything in this old world is about Republicans.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    last year
Republicans don't have a fucking thing to do with it.

they're the ones pushing all the anti-LGBTQ legislation...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    last year
they're the ones pushing all the anti-LGBTQ legislation...

In very liberal Massachusetts?

LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.3    last year

nationwide.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.5  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.1    last year
they're all children of my ultra conservative and strict catholic cousins

on the italian side of the family... LOL...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1.4    last year
nationwide.

Oh, so you want to yak about something other than the article.

Good for you--post a seeded article!!!!!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.7  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    last year
Oh, so you want to yak about something other than the article.

LOL

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1.7    last year

The proof is in your very own posts time and time again on this article.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    last year
they're the ones pushing all the anti-LGBTQ legislation...

Or.... just maybe.... some of that legislation is less "anti-LGBTQ" and more "for fuck's sake use some common sense".

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    last year
This case is an absolute loser for Massachusetts.

If Fulton v. City of Philadelphia is any indication, you are likely correct. Mark it down in your diary ... something sensational to read in your waning days.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2  Jeremy Retired in NC    last year
The lawsuit claims that the state listed only one reason for denying the Burke's foster application, which was that they "would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA."

They also believe that children should not undergo procedures that attempt to change their God-given sex, and they uphold Catholic beliefs about marriage and sexuality

I'm willing to bet THAT is why they were rejected.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    last year

The state admitted that they qualified on everything else.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3  Texan1211    last year

In its great wisdom, Massachusetts bars these folks based solely on their religious beliefs from becoming parents. because a kid MIGHT be trans? WTF?

The crazies are clearly running the asylum there.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @3    last year

How is that worse than disqualifying potential parents because they are LGBTQA+?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  evilone @3.1    last year

Does Massachusetts do that? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @3.1    last year
How is that worse than disqualifying potential parents because they are LGBTQA+?

A strawman argument for sure.

Where have I ever argued that alphabet members shouldn't allowed to be parents?

What does that have to do with THIS case?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.3  evilone  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.1    last year
Does Massachusetts do that? 

Did I say they did? Other states have done it. Some Catholic adoption groups have done it. It applies.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @3.1.3    last year
Other states have done it.

And how does that apply in this case?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  evilone @3.1.3    last year

I was simply asking a question FFS............have a good day.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.6  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    last year
And how does that apply in this case?

It applies to people's perception of what's crazy? If it's crazy that the religious couple in the article were denied adoption on the basis of their ideals of sexuality, it's equally crazy to bar a same sex couple on their ideals of sexuality.

The crazies are clearly running the asylum...

And for the record I don't think either couple should be denied on that basis alone.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.7  evilone  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.5    last year
I was simply asking a question FFS

So was I. 

have a good day.

I will. You have a good day as well.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @3.1.6    last year
It applies to people's perception of what's crazy? If it's crazy that the religious couple in the article were denied adoption on the basis of their ideals of sexuality, it's equally crazy to bar a same sex couple on their ideals of sexuality.

Nice s=t=r=e=t=c=h.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.9  Ronin2  replied to  evilone @3.1.3    last year

As leftists love to point out, you are trying to compare a state run entity to a private institution. 

The same rules don't apply to both. A private institution can place any restrictions it desires on it's product. State run institutions must service everyone equally under the law. 

That was the leading argument on the left when Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites banned users, removed content they didn't agree with, and kept certain users off their algorithms so their comments couldn't be seen. (Unfortunately for leftists the FBI was involved in influencing those decisions using tax payer money- they are government institution).

As for the states that try to ban LGNTQ+++ couples from adopting- they are getting sued all the way to the Supreme Court. Chances are those laws will all be overturned. Same should happen to to the Mass law.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.1.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.9    last year
Same should happen to to the Mass law.

Is it actually a law or just some over-active leftist trying to make their own rules?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    last year

Punishing kids in the name of their cult.  The same who people who support  a man dressed up as a woman reduce  mothers to "egg bearers" are doing this. Just loony toons. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    last year
Just loony toons. 

EXACTLY

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.2  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    last year
Punishing kids in the name of their cult. 

The article isn't about Sunday School. 

The same who people who support  a man dressed up as a woman reduce  mothers to "egg bearers" are doing this.

The people who claim a transgendered woman reduces any women in anyway are...

Just loony toons.
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @4.2    last year
The article isn't about Sunday School. 

Is the article about this then?

How is that worse than disqualifying potential parents because they are LGBTQA+?
 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  evilone @4.2    last year
"The people who claim a transgendered woman reduces any women in anyway are..."

Aren't you aware that transgendered women are not real women, just mentally fucked up biological males?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.2    last year
Aren't you aware that transgendered women are not real women, just mentally fucked up biological males?

DO you remember the movie "Soul Man" from the mid 80s?  A preppy white kid gets a deep tan and pretends to be black to qualify for a scholarship. These days, he doesn't even have to go that far. Since you can become a woman just by declaring yourself one, all the kid in the movie had to do was say "I'm black now" and voila, he's black

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5  Texan1211    last year

And I thought we had moved beyond religious tests.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @5    last year

not in florida or texas, apparently...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @5.1    last year

Please stop replying to me. I don't need any of that inanity in my life.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  devangelical @5.1    last year

What the hell does that have to do with Massachusetts?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.2    last year
What the hell does that have to do with Massachusetts?

NOT. A. FUCKING. THING. OBVIOUSLY.

Just trolling again.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6  mocowgirl    last year

There are numerous historical facts on the atrocities committed by the hierarchy and followers of the Roman Catholic Church.

There are numerous testimonies and videos of people who were indoctrinated into the RCC religion and the harm it has done to their life.  (Same with other religious sects, if a person really cares about the harm religious beliefs have had in people's lives by teaching people are evil and must follow inane rules or face severe punishments in this life and possibly eternal torment after death.)

Why should any child, that is placed into state care because of parental abuse, be subjected to further abuse by strangers who teach them that they are evil sinners deserving of eternal punishment?  

Children are not equipped to research belief systems and make a value judgement so it is critical that they are protected until they are of legal age to make choose the belief system that they find worthy of being in their life.  

This should apply equally to ALL religious beliefs.  If it doesn't, then Massachusetts will have to make a case of why one religion is acceptable and another is not.

 
 

Who is online



afrayedknot


434 visitors