Focus on the Family must be running out of original content, because they’ve taken to posting “guest” commentaries from subsidiary state groups, even if the content is not new. This week’s commentary is a post from the New Jersey Family Policy Council that was originally published in February of 2012 condemning adoption to justify opposing marriage equality:

Children have a right to a mother and a father. This right is more than a sentimental tie to social custom; it is based on an iron law of biology. We are all created male and female. Although we have devised mechanisms in the last twenty years that allow us to circumvent traditional fatherhood and motherhood, a new life can still not be created without male and female genetic material. Significantly, these artificial means display a grave lack of respect for human dignity.

Though the implication of the piece is that same-sex couples should not have the right to marry, it takes an incredibly strong position against any kind of family that uses assisted reproduction or adoption. Even the National Organization for Marriage has had to take a position against adoption to avoid sounding too anti-gay with its other rhetoric about protecting children. Still, the post doesn’t argue that adoption should be outlawed — only same-sex marriage — and its three arguments are easily refuted.

The first claim is that children are harmed by the “collapse of marriage.” This is true, because children do better when both their parents are still present and supporting the family. It’s a claim that has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, despite Focus on the Family’s many attempts to use “fatherless” studies about single mothers to fraudulently draw conclusions about lesbian couples’ parenting.

The second claim, incidentally made before the infamous Regnerus study was published, is that social science suggests that children do better in a “married-couple family with a mom and dad.” This could be another reference to “fatherless” studies or other conflated conclusions about broken homes. None of the research that actually looked at committed same-sex parents, even in the absence of marriage’s legal protections, has found any adverse outcomes for children.

Lastly, the post concludes that children of same-sex couples suffer because they do not have a biological connection to both parents. The assertion relies on a 2011 report from the conservative Institute for American Values called “One Parent Or Five,” a study that that relied on no actual research about same-sex parents — dismissing all such studies as not being “representative.” Instead, it suggests that same-sex families “most closely resemble” stepfamilies, because one parent is often biological and the other is not. Thus, just like the Regnerus study would later do, the researchers apply evidence about broken homes and separated families to same-sex families, presuming that the biological connection is more important than the parents’ commitment to the child’s well-being.

If conservatives in New Jersey and at Focus on the Family were really concerned that children without a biological connection fared worse, they would actually campaign against adoption and foster care. Instead, they just misapply research and make faulty conclusions to try to persuade their supporters that there is some justification for opposing marriage equality besides anti-gay animus. As far as science is concerned, there is no such justification.

During oral arguments on same-sex marriage last week Justice Scalia argued against recognizing marriage equality by pointing to what he perceives as the potential harm that could befall children if same-sex couples could eventually adopt:

SCALIA: If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must  permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

Scalia’s bigoted words contain a host of flawed assumptions. For starters, his comments are part of a discriminatory narrative that same-sex parents are inferior at best, or abusive at worst. But, as Ezra Klein pointed out, “there’s no evidence that gay parents aren’t great parents.” According to the American Sociological Association, “whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex-parents has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing.” A host of other reputable groups — including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Child Welfare League of America — agree with that conclusion.

Not only is Scalia’s comment about the scientific literature on LGBT parents outright wrong, his words also presume that there are no LGBT children in foster care and in need of adoption. But, in fact, the best evidence we have shows that LGBT foster youth are overrepresented in foster care, in part because of the discrimination they experience in their schools and families of origin. And there are documented instances of foster parents refusing to accept LGBT youth into their homes, kicking them out of their homes, or otherwise isolating them once they are placed in their home. Does Justice Scalia think, without a shred of evidence, that placing these children in homes with LGBT parents would somehow harm them more than the outright bigotry they already experience?

LGBT youth in the foster care system are treated differently from other groups, such as racial, ethnic, and religious groups, who enjoy greater constitutional protections with regard to the provision of culturally competent placements. For example, case workers attempt to place African American youth with African American parents and Spanish-speaking children in Spanish-speaking homes, or to place these children only in homes that have undergone cultural sensitivity training that explicitly addresses their unique needs. Allowing LGBT adults to adopt is one of the more obvious steps the system could take to increase the number of suitable placements available to LGBT foster youth. But anti-gay groups have opposed efforts to even provide sensitivity training to those responsible for LGBT foster youth because they refuse to acknowledge the children’s identity in the first place.

Of course, denying LGBT families the right to foster and adopt doesn’t just harm LGBT foster youth, it harms all foster youth by preventing loving adoptive parents from being able to care for them. Despite the recommendations of many child advocates, only a few states currently allow LGBT Americans to adopt or foster children. Throughout most of the country, LGBT couples face significant barriers to either fostering or adopting and in some states are explicitly prohibited from doing so.

This discriminatory treatment of LGBT Americans in the foster care system is part-and-parcel of laws that define marriage as only between heterosexuals and discriminate against non-heteronormative family structures. At present, courts do not have to apply the same level of scrutiny to the treatment of LGBT Americans, so the foster care system simultaneously discriminates against LGBT adults who want to adopt children and LGBT children who desperately need to be adopted into safe and culturally competent homes.

If Justice Scalia really cares about the best interests of children he would protect the constitutional rights of all children who need to be adopted — gay or straight — and ensure that all adoptive parents are recognized and protected by the law.

Our guest blogger is Lindsay Rosenthal, Research Assistant with the Health Policy Program and the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress.

Last week, National Organization for Marriage chairman John Eastman referred to adoption as the “second-best” solution for children, including the adopted children of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. Eastman has since claimed the AP story  misquoted him, but NOM has a long history of claiming biological relationships are superior to adoptive ones, regardless of the sex of the parents.

The comments caught the attention of Jay and Bryan Leffew, a same-sex couple from California that make YouTube videos about their family. They responded in a touching post outlining some of the various forms of stigma they have experienced as adoptive parents, even from other same-sex parents who used surrogacy instead. Their son Daniel, who is now 12-years-old and has lived with them for seven years, wanted to offer a response of his own, so he penned a letter to Chief Justice Roberts about his experience being adopted by his two dads, which he also read aloud for all of YouTube to see:

MARTINEZ-LEFFEW: When I was in foster care, I was told that I was considered unadoptable because of my Goldenhar Syndrome. That is a genetic disorder that affects the whole left side of my body. I lost my little brother Emilio because some people wanted to adopt him, but they weren’t willing to adopt me because of my medical conditions. Lucky for me, that’s when my two dads came along.

I recently found out that you yourself adopted two kids, a boy and a girl, kind of like me and my sister. Family means a lot of different things to different people, but some people believe you have to have the same blood to be a family. You and I both know family goes deeper than blood. I was lucky to be adopted by two guys I can both call dad. [...]

I know you have a tough decision to make with the gay marriage issue, but my family is just as valuable and worthwhile as any other. It’s especially tough for you because I know you don’t necessarily believe in gay marriage religiously; lucky for us, though, you also don’t believe in taking away a right, even from people like us.

Watch it:

On CNN today, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins continued his anti-marriage-equality tour of cable news shows and repeated many of his often debunked claims about the dangers same-sex couples pose to religious liberty, public education, and the institution of marriage.

But when pressed by host Brooke Baldwin about real same-sex couples, he struggled to explain away his unjustifiable fears.

BALDWIN: Have you ever been to the home of a married same-sex couple?

PERKINS: I have not been to the home of a same-sex married couple, no.

BALDWIN: If you were ever to do so, and you’re sitting across from them over dinner, how would you convince them that their life together — either two men, two women — hurts straight couples? What do you tell them?

PERKINS: Well first, Brooke, we don’t make public policy based on what’s good for me and my family, or you and your family, or one couple.

BALDWIN: I’m just asking, on a personal level…

PERKINS: We’re engaged here, in a discussion about public policy and what’s best for the nation. Not annecdotes or what one couple likes.

BADLWIN: But this is issue–it is personal. It is personal as well.

PERKINS: But that’s not how we make public policy. Certainly, there are some same-sex couples that are probably great parents. But that’s not what the overwhelming amount of social science shows us.

Watch the video:

It is noteworthy that Perkins — who opposes allowing same-sex couples to adopt at all — acknowledges that some same-sex couples that are probably great parents. Advocates for LGBT equality push for adoption policies that focus on what is in the best interest of the child — only placing children in need of loving homes with qualified parents. Perkins thinks that even same-sex couples who are great parents should be legally prevented from opening their homes to children in need of a family.

Perkins, like other anti-gay activists, misleads viewers on what the “overwhelming amount of social sciences” actually shows. Several studies have shown that children benefit from having a two-parent family, compared to those raised by just one parent. But those studies have not shown that children raised by two same-sex parents are any worse off that those raised by opposite-sex couples.

Perkins is right — this is about social science. And social science makes it clear that children would be far better off in a home with two loving parents, regardless of whether they are two men, two women, or one of each.

Mitt Romney channeled the social conservative positions of Rick Santorum during last night’s GOP presidential debate in Arizona, arguing that religious organizations should be allowed to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples in the adoption process and claiming that children deserve a home “with a mother and a father”:

ROMNEY: And when we have programs that say we’re going to teach abstinence in schools, the liberals go crazy and try and stop us from doing that. We have to have a president who’s willing to say that the best opportunity an individual can give to their unborn child is an opportunity to be born in a home with a mother and a father. [...]

We battled, for instance, to help the Catholic Church stay in the adoption business. The amazing thing was that while the Catholic Church was responsible for half the adoptions in my state — half the adoptions — they had to get out of that business because the legislature wouldn’t support me and give them an exemption from having to place children in homes where there was a mom and a dad on a preferential basis.

Watch it:

In 2006, however, Romney seemed to accept the idea that same-sex couples can adopt a child. “They are able to adopt children…And I’m not going to change that,” he said, noting that same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adoption. “Obviously, that’s their right,” he explained in 2007.

But in aiming to secure the GOP presidential nomination for 2012, the former Massachusetts governor has walked back his support for gay and lesbian families and has adopted a more nuanced position on same-sex adoption. During an August GOP debate, Romney pledged to institute a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a between a man and a woman “because I believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and dad.” He doubled down on that position during a town hall in New Hampshire in October, arguing that while he would support “partnership agreements” for same-sex couples, “the ideal setting to raise a child for a society like ours is where there is a man and a woman.”

Ultimately, the Romney campaign maintains that same-sex adoption “should be assessed on a state-by-state basis,” a point the candidate himself failed to make in trying to close the gap between himself and Santorum at Wednesday night’s debate.

When Illinois legalized civil unions in June, the state insisted that government-funded programs “must allow same-sex couples into their foster and adoptive programs, or lose their state contracts” and any additional state funding. Catholic Charities, decided not to recognize gays and lesbians as parents and refused to comply with the expanded non-discrimination law. As a result, they forfeited more than $30.6 million in contracts, after unsuccessfully suing the state to restore the money.

Now, state lawmakers are “again trying to carve out exceptions to Illinois’ new civil unions statute, saying they shouldn’t be forced to choose between their values and the law.” Rep. Dwight Kay (R) has filed legislation “that would allow religion based or affiliated adoption agencies with state contracts to decline an adoption or foster family home application, as well as licensure and placement, to anyone in a civil union.” Discriminating against gay couples is, “common sense,” he says:

Kay said his legislation is “just another common sense bill.” “Religious based childcare done by Catholic and Lutheran organizations has been an integral part of the state of Illinois,” Kay said. “It has done a better job of handling child care services and it’s done much cheaper.”

Kay’s bill failed last year and his latest measure marks the fifth time legislation “has been filed in the state general assembly in an attempt to water down the state’s civil union law over the past year.” (HT: Care2)