News

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!”

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

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.

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

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.

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

Fuck that couple in particular.

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

lol those two shouldn't be near any kids. They'll just be control freaks and make their kid exactly what they wanted to avoid.

Stop trying to control every aspect of children lives, conservatives.

"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.

good? why should children be indoctrinated into bigotry

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.

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'll allow it.

So:

1. They expressed bigoted views
2. The SW passed them through anyway, "with conditions" which likely include "just don't give this couple any gay kids"
3. They were ultimately denied for reasons not stated
4. 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.

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.