So a Catholic couple is suing the state. Becket Law is representing them. Here is a portion of the press release.
WASHINGTON – A religious couple in Massachusetts took the Commonwealth to court today for banning them from welcoming vulnerable children into their home through the Commonwealth’s foster care program. In Burke v. Walsh, Mike and Kitty Burke wanted to foster and someday adopt children in need of a family. Even though Massachusetts has a foster care crisis, state officials refused to let the Burkes foster any children in the state. The reason was their religious beliefs about marriage, sexuality, and gender. With the help of Becket, the Burkes are asking the court to ensure that qualified families no longer suffer for their religious beliefs and that vulnerable children are given a loving home.
According to state officials: “Their faith is not supportive.”
During their application process, the Burkes underwent hours of training, extensive interviews, and an examination of their home. Mike and Kitty completed the training successfully and received high marks from the instructors. However, during their home interviews, the Burkes were troubled that many questions centered on their Catholic views about sexual orientation and gender dysphoria. In response, the Burkes emphasized that they would love and accept any child, no matter the child’s future sexual orientation or struggles with gender identity.
However, because Mike and Kitty said they would continue to hold to their religious beliefs about gender and human sexuality, they were denied the ability to foster. The couple’s home study said, “Their faith is not supportive.” DCF officials said that while they had strengths, their answers about sexuality and gender barred them from being licensed.
In a recent episode of the 10 Blocks podcast, hosted by City Journal, Mene Ukueberuwa and Brian C. Anderson delve into the growing trend of school choice programs across the United States. These programs, which include school vouchers and education savings accounts, have been gaining traction, particularly in the last few years.
Ukueberuwa explains that the political will for such programs has been building, and since 2022, several states have passed universal school choice programs. These programs allow all students in the state to potentially pursue a private education outside of the traditional public school system. This is a significant shift in the education landscape.
The demand for these programs has been incredibly high, driven by a combination of factors. Public school enrollment was already decreasing from 2020 to 2022, largely due to school closures during the pandemic. Parents were looking for alternatives to traditional public schools, which were perceived as underperforming and slow to reopen.
Another reason for the shift is because the pandemic exposed parents to the teaching methods and curricula used in public schools. Many parents were dissatisfied with what they perceived as radical pedagogies (gender ideology) and a lack of seriousness and expertise among teachers. This dissatisfaction, coupled with a desire to align their children’s education with their values, has driven many parents towards private schools, particularly those with a religious mission.
The way these programs work is by attaching a portion of the per-pupil public funding to the child. If parents decide to send their child to a private school, that money is subtracted from the funding that would go to the student’s public school and follows them to their new school of choice.
Ukueberuwa highlights Florida as one of the first states to make vouchers available to a wide proportion of students. Today, about 13% of all students in Florida are enrolled in private schools, an increase of about 30% from five to ten years ago. This growth can be attributed to the availability of approximately $8,700 per student for private school tuition.
The podcast also discusses the impact of these programs on traditional public schools. While some fear that the voucher programs could lead to declining funding for public schools, Ukueberuwa explains that states have tried to compensate by increasing teacher pay and substituting additional state funding for certain programs at these schools.
While school choice has become a popular cause among Republican candidates, conservatives are wary of expanding the role of the federal government in education. They fear that federal funding for private schools would come with strings attached, potentially limiting the freedom and flexibility that make school choice programs appealing in the first place. So they would prefer to keep it a local issue.
Even though there will be difficulties, in some states the educational landscape is changing for the better. Parents, through their legislators, are taking back control.
Well, the full reason is centuries old, but part of the reason is today’s change in our marriage laws. Two eminently qualified commentators laid this out more than 3 years ago.
They are:
Ryan T. Anderson , the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute.B.A Princeton, PhD Notre Dame.
Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.
In that article, Anderson and George presented an argument against the redefinition of marriage, particularly in relation to same-sex marriage and the implications it would have on societal norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence.
They argued that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage has led to a shift in societal understanding of marriage. Marriage is now seen as a flexible institution based on consenting adult relationships, rather than a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of childbearing and rearing.
This shift undermines the belief that children deserve a mother and a father.
In relation to monogamy, the authors questioned why marriage should be limited to two people if it is simply about romantic connection. Because there is nothing inherently special about the number two, the logic of ‘romantic connection’ inexorably leads to the mainstreaming of non-traditional relationships.
Specifically, they mentioned the emergence and acceptance of “throuples,” a term used to describe a three-person romantic relationship. They also mentioned the rise of “ethical nonmonogamy,” a term used to describe relationships where all parties consent to their partners having other romantic and sexual relationships.
On the topic of exclusivity, Anderson and George argued that if marriage is not a union uniting a man and a woman as one flesh, there is no reason it should involve or imply sexual exclusivity. They discussed the acceptance of “open relationships,” where partners are not exclusive and can have other relationships outside of their primary one.
Regarding permanence, they questioned why marriage should be pledged to permanence if it is not a comprehensive union inherently ordered to childbearing and rearing.
This erosion of the norms of monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence has had profound consequences on society, particularly for children, and it is a result of the cultural breakdown of marriage.
Also they argued that the redefinition of marriage has led to questioning the relevance of gender in marriage, contributing to the rise of discussions around transgender and nonbinary identities. For if gender doesn’t matter in marriage, it might not matter at all, leading to the idea of gender as a fluid concept existing along a spectrum of nonbinary options.
In a final flourish they say the redefinition of marriage was influenced by body-self dualism, the idea that we are essentially nonphysical entities inhabiting physical bodies. So these bodies are not who we REALLY are. This belief led to the idea that the physical aspects of sexual acts did not matter, and that what mattered was emotional union and the use of bodies to induce desirable sensations and feelings. This, they argue, contributed to the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex relationships.
In their view, these changes are not grassroots movements but are driven by those wielding political, economic, and cultural power to advance a sexual-liberationist ideology. These changes have been top-down, driven by ideologically friendly courts, federal agencies, and big corporations.
Finally, let me add something about legal arrangements for my gay and lesbian friends. Legal arrangements regarding inheritance rights, visitation rights, etc., for non-heterosexual relationships are supported by the vast majority of Americans.
There was no need to redefine marriage.
But here we are.
+++
The law shapes culture, culture shapes beliefs, and beliefs shape action.
