•

Massachusetts couple denied foster care application over LGBTQ views, complaint says

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/massachusetts-couple-denied-foster-care-application-lgbtq-views-compla-rcna99339

Michael and Catherine Burke allege that the state’s Department of Children and Families discriminated against them for their Catholic viewpoints.

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.

133 comments

Moobythegoldensock

•

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!”

MagicShel

•

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.

Sekoia

•

Yeah, that's why I generally prefer "queer". Plus, it's not an acronym, and reclaiming words is always good!

Wahots

•

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.

Lemmylefty

•

They modify the A, so are probably Asexual and Ally.

NatakuNox

•

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.

Bartsbigbugbag

•

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.

NatakuNox

•

And now red states made it legal to kidnapping LGBTQ children from loving homes to traditional homes

bobs_monkey

•

Wait, they're allowing kids to be removed from foster/adoptive homes and transferred to a religious home? On what grounds and who's authority?

NatakuNox

•

They are talking LGBTQ kids from their families because gender affirming care is illegal.

HotDogFingies

•

I don't know what to say. I'm so sorry you went through that.

Bartsbigbugbag

•

Nah don’t be sorry, just be angry at a system that allows such things, and at a religion that shields such people. I came out okay in the end, because I have a family that loves me and helps support me through my traumas, but I don’t know what happened to their kid, or if they were ever stopped. That’s the part that bothers me. Knowing that those sickos could still be out there presenting themselves as righteous Christians while doing such things.

Diprount_Tomato

•

"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

kescusay

•

And with such a simple change, you turned it into a disgusting and bigoted lie, when the person you responded to was completely accurate.

Diprount_Tomato

•

Someone who'd unironically say what I did would think the same

kescusay

•

And they'd be wrong.

There's a common misconception that there are two sides to any issue. Sounds reasonable, right? Everyone loves compromise and meeting in the middle.

But homophobic and transphobic bigots are just wrong. They're provably, factually incorrect, and have an argument with reality itself. They're on the same level as Flat-Earthers or people who think 1 + 1 = 3. And yes, they'll say the same thing about me, and they'll be wrong and stupid when they do that. Why worry that the wrong, stupid, and hateful people think they're right? Why lend their hate even the veneer of credibility?

You can't "meet in the middle" with people who reject reality. 1 + 1 = 2.5 is just as incorrect as 1 + 1 = 3.

Diprount_Tomato

•

I can prove 1+1=2 by axioms, you can't prove the Earth is flat. Simple as

kescusay

•

Someone crazy can tell you your actions are wrong. Someone crazy can insist on all kinds of things that are crazy, and insist that you are the crazy person. And by their standards, you can't disprove it.

So is there any point in arguing with such a person? Or lending any credence to their perspectives?

People who believe LGBTQ+ people are "groomers" or doing something unnatural are objectively wrong, and the fact that they believe they're right doesn't change that, nor does it obligate me to treat their mistaken beliefs as anything but the mistakes they are, and I won't pretend otherwise or grant their hate and bigotry any respect.

Diprount_Tomato

•

Why are they objectively wrong? I can't prove they are objectively right either but you seem confident that they are. So please, give me the info to shut their mouths off

czech

•

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?

foggy

•

Oh the difference is that religious bigots exist. And in huge, huge numbers.

"LGBT groomers" are not a thing. It's a figurative Boogeyman you invented or someone convinced you exists in an attempt to create a dichotomy where one does not exist.

dhork

•

Or, to be more accurate, the Religious Right considers any talk of alternative lifestyles as "grooming" now, because they find the notion that kids might be born gay invalid, and every single kid that identifies differently was "made" that way because they talked with a "deviant".

Meanwhile, Catholic dioceses all over the country are declaring bankruptcy, in spite of their tax exempt status, just to gain an advantage in the lawsuits over the priests who were, quite literally, grooming kids (no scare quotes required).

foggy

•

Not that I'm trying to support Catholicism, but the Pope is out here saying "God loves all, yes even LGBT"

dhork

•

This Pope is a Jesuit from South America, though, and Jesuits tend to be a bit more liberal than other orders, if for no other reason that they are involved in education in a lot of poor countries. A fair amount of the most liberal Liberation Theology in South America and Latin America came from Jesuits.

But there are limits, even to what a Pope can do, to steer a 2000 year old institution. He may be saying that God loves everyone, but as long as the Church says that homosexuality is disordered, those people won't feel welcome, even if the Pope wants to hug them.

foggy

•

Oh I think we agree. I think our conversation speaks to just how broken the institution of religion is, as applied to a group of size 8,000,000,000+.

Diprount_Tomato

•

Still, it's better than having a USA-like pope rambling about how "sodomites" must be sent to conversion therapy

Diprount_Tomato

•

Yes, God loves everyone

FlyingSquid

•

Your Bible says otherwise.

Diprount_Tomato

•

"your"? Dude the Bible is for all humanity to read

Unaware7013

•

Yeah, you can make anything sound bad when you just lie and make shit up.

Diprount_Tomato

•

Could say the same of you calling everyone that points out the dangers of dehumanising "bigots"

Unaware7013

•

You can say anything, that doesn't make it correct. And it's funny how people call themselves out, because I only call people exhibiting bigotry bigots.

If you're being called a bigot, maybe examine your beliefs and actions. After all, if it smells like shit everywhere you go, it's probably you.

girlfreddy

•

@Unaware7013 @MicroWave @NatakuNox @Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world

My block button is getting quite the workout these last 10 days or so.

Was there a mass migration I didn't hear about?

Diprount_Tomato

•

Good luck thinking looking the other way will make people who you disagree with disappear

Diprount_Tomato

•

If thinking having two halves of a country willing to kill each other to be insane makes people call you a bigot, maybe I'm not the one that stinks after all

Unaware7013

•

No one thinks you're a bigot for that belief, climb down off your cross or just be honest about your actions.

Diprount_Tomato

•

Yet I'm being called one for it

Lemmylefty

•

“I think murderers are bad people.” “I think Asians are bad people.”

Hey guys, you won’t believe this, but did you know that when you use different words that meanings change? I know, right?

Diprount_Tomato

•

Oh sure, they're totally as comparable as the one I made (everyone knows how related murderers and Asians are) and it's totally not fallacy you made up to make my point sound more ridiculous

Lemmylefty

•

Exactly! Comparing two populations wherein one is defined by intrinsic, inborn characteristics whose expression has no bearing upon their moral bent versus a group whose willful admittance to and participation in said group is dependent upon making moral choices and deeming them the same is, in fact, completely ridiculous. I’m glad you agree with me.

Diprount_Tomato

•

Has anyone told you you're stubborn as hell?

Lemmylefty

•

I have siblings, yes.

new_acct_who_dis

•

Oh honey, you're just dumb as hell

Melpomene

•

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.

FlyingSquid

•

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.

NatakuNox

•

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

Drivebyhaiku

•

Pendantic though it may be... 30 percent is more accurate for children in foster care to be LGBTQIA+. Many lose their homes of origin and support BECAUSE they are LGBTQIA+ so the instance is way higher.

Kind of a no brainer to have homo/transphobic foster parents struck from the rolls. It's enough to be traumatized once by having your authentic self rejected by a supposed safe haven. Twice is unconscionable.

bobs_monkey

•

These boneheads seem to mix up up supportive with grooming. I had a conversation at a bar the other day with some dipshit that said if you support your child coming out as gay or trans, you're effectively grooming them to be a sexual deviant. They fail to realize that grooming is an active nudge or conditioning in the direction of a desired behavior, whereas being supportive is unconditional love regardless of identity. My buddy's kid is identifying as a girl atm, and while he and I both think it's a phase (he's 15 and just an awkward kid in general), we are supportive of his/her choice.

On the other hand, there are parents out there that actively nudge their kids into being some brand of queer from a young age (not just in providing an open minded atmosphere, but almost to discerning them gay from a stupid young age) that, to me, begins to cross a line. In my mind, let be kids be kids that become teenagers and then adults, and just support them in their choices while guiding them to be the best person they can be.

Diprount_Tomato

•

Bro those aren't my actual opinions

NatakuNox

•

Bro don't make ambiguous statements. Use your words more wisely so everyone knows exactly what you are saying

Diprount_Tomato

•

Ok, maybe I needed to say that dehumanising and treating other human beings as demonic monsters is tearing countries apart

TheBenCommandments

•

Don’t be a demonic monster you won’t be treated like one.

Diprount_Tomato

•

To the others you're a demonic monster too, and until you realise that your country will sink down the drain

x4740N

•

Have fun having your comments being removed bigot

Diprount_Tomato

•

Oh sure, cause pointing out how extremist someone might be is totally thinking LGBT people are groomers

Sharkwellington

•

Could you be less subtle next time? I almost didn't notice the transphobia.

Cleverdawny

•

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.

SquishyPandaDev

•

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

TheBenCommandments

•

Which is zero children to indoctrinate by way of fear and hate.

whofearsthenight

•

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.

Prewash_Required

•

In this case that being no foster kids

Potatos_are_not_friends

•

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.

fear

•

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.

lem_dart

•

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.

NathanielThomas

•

Thank goodness the system works. Michael is an absolute scumbag.

some_guy

•

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."

xantoxis

•

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.

dhork

•

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.

darthfabulous42069

•

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.

shastaxc

•

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.

Diprount_Tomato

•

Or America is really just fucked up

dhork

•

¿Porque no los dos?

Diprount_Tomato

•

I mean, America is fucked up because of tribalism and identity politics (both Republicans and Democrats do this) so yeah, it's los dos

Burn_The_Right

•

This is why conservatives should not be permitted to be foster parents. Child abuse is a foundational principle of conservatism.

name_NULL111653

•

As a child of conservatives, I can confirm...

Wahots

•

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.

TheDoctorDonna

•

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

Leviathan

•

What's wrong with smashing a racist's face into concrete?

halfelfhalfreindeer

•

You're not supposed to hurt your friends.

Leviathan

•

See, that's why religious people are a cancer, look who they befriend.

Mediocre_Bard

•

Noice.

TheDoctorDonna

•

Edited, I'm bad at typing. He was a racist who smashes a black man into the concrete

Rainmanslim

•

Permanently Deleted

vzq

•

“Gay people suck, unless I can use them as a stick to beat up Muslims”

Fuck off.

Rainmanslim

•

Permanently Deleted

vzq

•

My standards? That was my first post to the thread.

Maybe actually read and pay attention, jerk face.

Rainmanslim

•

Permanently Deleted

vzq

•

BTW, I don't hate Muslims, I am Muslim. I'm not a delusional western leftist who thinks us Muslims are a bunch of pro-lgbt pro-trans anti-christian etc... pseudo progressive communists like you think we are.

Tell me more about this “making assumptions” thing. I’m especially interested about everything you seem to know I “think”.

Projection much?

Thekingoflorda

•

If you are planning on continuing this discussion, mind rule 1.

Mediocre_Bard

•

Yes. Every shitty group needs reform.

PrincessLeiasCat

•

Yeah, child abuse isn’t an ideal trait to have if you intend to be the legal guardian of children.

lolcatnip

•

Fuck that couple in particular.

SolNine

•

Good, no child should be placed with parents who may discriminate against them for their natural state of being.

HellAwaits

•

Permanently Deleted

Empricorn

•

"Views", meaning they'll abandon their child if they ever come out or acknowledge that LGBTQ people exist...

MicroWave

•

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

tym

•

Sounds like it's God's plan for them to stay the fuck away from children. First sensible thing that asshat's done.

some_guy

•

Hahahaha! What a great take.

jenniebuckley

•

good? why should children be indoctrinated into bigotry

JTode

•

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.

JunctionSystem

•

Cat: They shouldn't even be allowed access to the children they do make themselves.

JTode

•

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.

JunctionSystem

•

Cat: If someone can't be trusted to treat an adopted kid right, they can't be trusted to treat any kid right. End of story.

JTode

•

Well, I'm already on the record as to my view of what constitutes child abuse; the fact of the matter is that we have to live with a lot of people doing a lot of things that we don't like to children in a free society in 2023.

What is kinda good from my 50-odd year perspective is that people are not quite so entitled now as they were when I was a kid.