In an interview on Thursday, President Bush waffled on the Florida gay adoption ban, saying he doesn't "know this particular case" but asserting that "studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."
A Saturday New York Times article
(registration required) reveals that Bush once again prefers improvisation to science:
Experts say there is no scientific evidence that children raised by gay couples do any worse - socially, academically or emotionally - than their peers raised in more traditional households. The experts, who cross the political spectrum, say studies have shown that on average, children raised by two married heterosexual parents fare better on a number of measures, including school performance, than those raised by single parents or by parents who are living together but are unmarried. But, said Dr. Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University, "there is not a single legitimate scholar out there who argues that growing up with gay parents is somehow bad for children."
article goes on to discuss some of the genuine difficulties involved with research on this subject, but the bottom line does seem to be that doubts about gay adoption and parenting are grounded more in homorejectica than actual science. Those who like the Florida law -- Republicans? -- apparently prefer that children be wards of the state than adopted into stable households that happen to involve gay humans. (Roger, no doubt, will reply that not all Republicans like the Florida law, but can he identify some in positions of power who have publicly repudiated it for the nastiness that it is?)