A Catholic husband and wife, Kitty and Matthew Burke, are currently suing the state of Massachusetts after it rejected their application on the grounds that they “would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA.” Tim Carney comments:

Massachusetts regulations dictate that all foster and adoptive parents must abide by the teachings of gender ideology, specifically the notion that children have an interior gender that is undetermined by their biological sex—and that children have the right to change their gender. . . . As the Burkes say in their complaint, this is “an absolute bar for Catholics who agree with the Church’s teaching on sex, marriage, and gender.”

When Washington state enforced similar regulations against a Seventh-day Adventist couple, a federal court blocked their enforcement, explaining that it was religious discrimination. . . . But calling these regulations religious discrimination doesn’t quite go far enough. Massachusetts and Washington didn’t merely create rules that discriminate against Catholics and Seventh-day Adventists. They discriminate against Muslims and Pentecostals too.

These state regulations also discriminate against secular, irreligious couples who do not believe that a boy who declares himself really a girl is actually a girl.

If you do not share this faith-based spirituality, Massachusetts believes you are not fit to adopt or foster children. Thus Massachusetts has once again established a state religion—one that happens to be harmful to children.

Below, today’s newsletter will return to some other reflections on the one-year anniversary of the outbreak of the current war, but first something must be said of its recent progress. Israel has kept up its aerial and ground assault on Hizballah, and may have already killed the successor to Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime leader it eliminated less than two weeks ago. Matthew Levitt assesses the current state of the Lebanon-based terrorist group, which, in his view, is now “a shadow of its former self.” Indeed, he adds,

it is no exaggeration to say that the Hizballah of two weeks ago no longer exists. And since Hizballah was the backbone of Iran’s network of militant proxies, its so-called axis of resistance, Iran’s strategy of arming and deploying proxy groups throughout the region is suddenly at risk as well.

Hizballah’s attacks put increasing pressure on Israel, as intended, only that pressure did not lead Israelis to stop targeting Hamas so much as it chipped away at Israel’s fears about the cost of military action to address the military threats posed by Hizballah.

At the same time, Levitt explains, Hizballah still poses a serious threat, as it demonstrated last night when its missiles struck Haifa and Tiberias, injuring at least two people:

Hizballah still maintains an arsenal of rockets and a cadre of several thousand fighters. It will continue to pose potent military threats for Israel, Lebanon, and the wider region.

How will the group seek to avenge Nasrallah’s death amid these military setbacks? Hizballah is likely to resort to acts of international terrorism, which are overseen by one of the few elements of the group that has not yet lost key leaders.

But the true measure of whether the group will be able to reconstitute itself, even over many years, is whether Iran can restock Hizballah’s sophisticated arsenal. Tehran’s network of proxy groups—from Hizballah to Hamas to the Houthis—is only as dangerous as it is today because of Iran’s provision of weapons and money. Whatever Hizballah does next, Western governments must prioritize cutting off Tehran’s ability to arm and fund its proxies.