You guys really need to go back and read the article in the OP, and you should also take a closer look at the evidence you're citing here.
This has nothing to do with government banning adoption. There have been and will continue to be plenty of agencies more than willing to work with same sex couples. This is about whether religious adoption agencies
absolutely have to play along, too - whether the state can coerce Christians into publicly disavowing their beliefs. Of course, the answer to this question is always a resounding "no," each and every time. We can have all the anti-discrimination laws in the world, but the moment they begin to impose on the free exercise of religion, it's game over. If you want to change that order of priority, then you really need to start organizing to amend the Constitution, because the Supreme Court is no longer going to legislate this kind of stuff from the bench for you anymore.
This is not an abstract thought experiment. The City of Philadelphia has
revoked their foster care contract with Catholic Social Services, pre-emptively, without any evidence of discrimination. That's what this amendment is looking to preclude - the absurd reality where governments are filtering out which religions can and cannot do business with the public, based on whether their denominational doctrine comports with the agenda of the current party in power. The idea that anyone would use this precedent to racially discriminate is equally absurd. The lead plaintiff in the case against Philadelphia
is an African American woman who has been working with Catholic Social Services for over twenty-five years. Again, this is not an abstract thought experiment - the Universal Church is frequently the biggest and best provider of human services in the communities that need them the most. They're largely the ones picking up the pieces for the people of color who are routinely hit the hardest by the family-destroying consequences of progressive politics. If you're willing to let the most vulnerable in our society suffer so you can push an anticlerical agenda, then maybe now might be a good time to take a step back and evaluate what you're really after here.
Substantially all of the studies showing no differences have been
absolutely torn to shreds. They use self-selecting volunteer sample sizes so small, they would never, ever pass scrutiny for any other subject. Many of these studies make no comparison at all, contrary to what many posters are uninformedly claiming in this thread. Comparisons are also frequently made to a baseline that is never accurately defined, or they compare to a baseline of broken homes and single mothers. Also contrary to what many are uninformedly claiming in this thread,
there have indeed been findings since identifying the same kind of differences we see with children who are not otherwise raised by their biological mother and father. Meanwhile, developmental psychology has known for decades and decades the things a child can only get from her mother, and the different things she will only ever get from her father. The growing literature on the damage fatherlessness has done to society, especially to young men of color, is absolutely unassailable. Moreover, this phenomenon facilitates surrogacy, the commercialization of the human womb, which is untenable under any real bioethical framework.
It's one thing to discard generations of psychology research to throw children into the test labs of social engineering. It's quite another entirely to fabricate bad research to sustain it. Much like abortion and embryology, same sex adoption is an area that shows the left is just as willing as the right to deny science when it runs afoul of their narratives.
