Christian Parents LOSE THEIR CHILDREN For Not Signing LGBT “Pledge”

.

.

Christian Faith Under Fire: Massachusetts Strips Foster Parents of License Over LGBTQ+ Stance

WOBURN, MA – The story of a Woburn couple, deeply committed to their Christian faith, has ignited a fierce debate over religious freedom and state policy in Massachusetts. James and Sarah, who devoted themselves to fostering eight vulnerable children—including an infant with complex medical needs—have had their foster license revoked by the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF). Their offense? Refusing to affirm the state’s mandate regarding LGBTQIA+ identity and gender-neutral practices, a stance they maintain is incompatible with their core Christian beliefs.

For fifteen months, the couple, who already have three biological children, dedicated their lives to these foster children. “Every night for 15 months, we were up at least three times,” the couple recounted. Their motivation was rooted firmly in their faith, citing biblical teachings that emphasize the importance of caring for the fatherless.

However, the DCF, in a move that critics are labeling as overt religious discrimination, demanded that foster families adhere to a specific “LGBTQIA+ Pledge.” This pledge requires foster parents to:

Accept a child’s assertion of their LGBTQIA+ identity.
Address children by their chosen names and pronouns.
Support gender-neutral practices regarding clothing and physical appearance.

The couple requested an accommodation, asking if the requirement could be waived, given their proven commitment to the children’s well-being. “We will absolutely love and support and care for any child in our home,” they explained, “but we simply can’t agree to go against our Christian faith in this area.”

They were told, unequivocally: “No, you must sign the form as is, or else you will be delicensed.” The DCF made it clear that adherence to the specific state ideology was mandatory, superseding the couple’s religious convictions and their demonstrated capacity to care for children in need.

The Irony of the Injustice

The core of the controversy lies in the stark irony of the situation. As critics point out, this couple was doing exactly what society desperately needs: taking in children who are difficult to place.

In the market for newborn babies put up for adoption, demand vastly outstrips supply. However, the foster system, which deals with older children, teenagers, and those with complex needs, faces the opposite reality: supply vastly outstrips demand.

This Christian couple felt called by their faith to step into this difficult space—to provide a stable, loving home for children who desperately needed one, doing “what most people don’t want to do.” Yet, the State of Massachusetts intervened, effectively stating: “Your Christian faith compels you to perform an act of charity, but we will not allow you to be Christian anymore if you wish to perform that act.”

This is not merely a clash of policy; it is a direct confrontation where a government entity is attempting to force individuals to renounce or fundamentally alter their religious identity in exchange for the right to serve the most vulnerable. As one commentator noted, the historical teaching of the Christian Church on subjects such as sexuality and gender identity has been “pretty clear going back about 2,000 years.” The State’s position creates an impossible choice, suggesting that Christian identity and adherence to the state’s mandated social ideology are mutually exclusive.

The outcome is that the State of Massachusetts has decided: “We will not allow foster children to be raised in a Christian household” if that household does not explicitly affirm the government’s stance on LGBTQIA+ issues. This is being broadly condemned as a clear case of religious discrimination and a profound misuse of state power.

The Absurdity of Moral Enforcement

This case also exposes what many see as the hypocrisy in the left’s argument regarding morality and law. Often, critics of Christian advocacy are quick to claim, “Why do you care? Stop trying to enforce your morality on others.”

Yet, as demonstrated by the DCF’s actions, the State itself is actively enforcing a particular moral and ideological framework. The government is not remaining neutral; it is aggressively demanding ideological conformity from its citizens, even when that conformity requires the suppression of deeply held religious beliefs necessary for an act of public good.

The state is forcing an implicit choice: adopt the State’s secular morality—which, in this case, involves affirming the entire LGBTQIA+ identity complex—or be deemed unfit to care for children. This is a profound shift from a government that simply asks for compliance with civil laws to one that demands compliance with its official social dogma.

The consequences of enshrining ideological lies into law are severe and far-reaching, extending far beyond this single couple’s loss:

Erosion of Religious Freedom: The case represents a governmental attempt to compel speech and action that violates religious conscience, making the exercise of faith conditional on state approval.
Harm to Vulnerable Children: By placing ideological purity above actual capacity for care, the State reduces the pool of willing and qualified foster parents, leaving more children without stable homes.
Systemic Damage: It prioritizes an ideological framework over objective standards of compassion and stability, damaging the very systems intended to protect the vulnerable.

The question for society is not whether there will be a moral framework for the law—as morality is inevitable to social creatures—but whose moral framework will be enforced. By actively forcing Christian families to either lie about their faith or lose their foster children, the State of Massachusetts has shown its willingness to discriminate against and suppress religious belief in favor of its own social mandate.

This incident reveals the stark reality: the debate is not about neutrality. It is about dominance—whose values will prevail in the public square, and who will be forced to submit and be silent. The courage of conviction is now being tested, with the most vulnerable children caught in the middle of a profound ideological and legal battle.

.