Why Judges Are Recognizing Gay Parents
Um, because it's good for the kids? Imagine that. Dahlia Lithwick writes on Slate:

If in fact judges around this country are increasingly inclined to recognize the validity of same-sex parenting arrangements, it's not because they are activists, or because they're mangling a long-established tradition of family law to do so. Courts that adopt broader visions of "parent" and "family" aren't reading radical new rights into their state constitutions. They are doing precisely what family courts are asked to do: Make a determination about what's in the "best interest of the child." That standard remains the polestar for judicial decision-making in both the adoption and custody contexts. And, as it turns out, most children usually have larger and more urgent concerns than what their parents do in bed.

The "best interest" test reinforces the legal proposition that children are not their parents' chattel; the state has an obligation to privilege their needs, sometimes even over the needs of their own parents, and other meddlesome adults. The best interest test is a legal standard, and not a fixed rule, precisely because judges must figure out what's best for kids on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis. And while judges can and should be able to make subjective policy decisions about whether two-parent adoptive homes are better than single-parent homes, they also need to be free to decide that in this case it's preferable for little Joey to have a gay adoptive father than none; or to have two legal mommies rather than one. Categorical rules rooted in sweeping moral judgments don't generally work in family law for the same reason they don't work for families: Kids love and need the parents they have, not necessarily the parents we love.

Just speaking in probabilities, who's likely to be a better parent, somebody who accidently shits out a kid because they forgot birth control, or two people who spent thousands of dollars and years to make it happen the newfangled way?