Massachusetts bans Catholic couple from fostering children due to beliefs on gender, sexuality, lawsuit claims
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
Who is online
438 visitors
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.
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.
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.
they're the ones pushing all the anti-LGBTQ legislation...
In very liberal Massachusetts?
LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nationwide.
on the italian side of the family... LOL...
Oh, so you want to yak about something other than the article.
Good for you--post a seeded article!!!!!
LOL
The proof is in your very own posts time and time again on this article.
Or.... just maybe.... some of that legislation is less "anti-LGBTQ" and more "for fuck's sake use some common sense".
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.
I'm willing to bet THAT is why they were rejected.
The state admitted that they qualified on everything else.
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.
How is that worse than disqualifying potential parents because they are LGBTQA+?
Does Massachusetts do that?
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?
Did I say they did? Other states have done it. Some Catholic adoption groups have done it. It applies.
And how does that apply in this case?
I was simply asking a question FFS............have a good day.
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.
And for the record I don't think either couple should be denied on that basis alone.
So was I.
I will. You have a good day as well.
Nice s=t=r=e=t=c=h.
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.
Is it actually a law or just some over-active leftist trying to make their own rules?
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.
EXACTLY
The article isn't about Sunday School.
The people who claim a transgendered woman reduces any women in anyway are...
Is the article about this then?
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
And I thought we had moved beyond religious tests.
not in florida or texas, apparently...
Please stop replying to me. I don't need any of that inanity in my life.
What the hell does that have to do with Massachusetts?
NOT. A. FUCKING. THING. OBVIOUSLY.
Just trolling again.
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.