In last week's gay marriage case in front of the US Supreme Court, Justice Scalia thought he found a way to rule against same-sex marriage without sounding homophobic. He contended that there is no research to show that same-sex couples could raise a child as adequately as a male-female couple could. He continued by saying that, by giving homosexual couples equivalent rights to bear or adopt children, then it could have adverse effects on the children themselves. He could not, in good conscious, give them these rights until he saw evidence otherwise.
Unsurprisingly, Scalia was wrong. Or really he assumed that there was no research, when there is actually plenty. Unlike most fields of study, the academic opinion on the matter is unanimous. Here is what an amicus brief from the American Sociological Association says about the research:
Decades of methodologically sound social science research, especially multiple nationally representative studies and the expert evidence introduced in the district courts below, confirm that positive child wellbeing is the product of stability in the relationship between the two parents, stability in the relationship between the parents and child, and greater parental socioeconomic resources. Whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing.Let me repeat that. The well-being of the child (therefore the effectiveness of the parenting) is not affected by the gender or sexual orientation of the adults. Two parents are always better than one, no matter if it is a homosexual or heterosexual couple. Therefore the evidence clearly states that the truly irresponsible choice is permitting the state the right to deny children a second parent based off of religious beliefs (which is unconstitutional due to the separation of church and state).
I have a pretty good idea where this case is heading.