But political prizes come by the will of voters. Social prizes are different. A few motivated people in the right places can often coerce public policy. Now gays have their eyes set on a critical prize: children, more specifically, who has rights to keep, take, bear and adopt children.

Last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a controversial policy statement on those rights, claiming that children could be brought up with equally good results by gay or heterosexual parents. The AAP points to 30 published studies that "prove" their case. But these studies are far from airtight. Each one has been thoroughly sliced and diced in the report "No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting" written by quantitative analysts Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai and published by the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. Lerner and Nagai debunk these studies as unsound, often politically motivated fiction. Lerner notes "The studies are fatally flawed in methodology, technique and analysis. Some didn’t even have control groups."

USC sociologists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz reviewed studies showing that while psychologically fine, daughters of lesbian couples are more likely to be sexually promiscuous and engage in lesbian experimentation (though Stacey ironically believes gay parents may be better than heterosexual parents). In her recent book "Children As Trophies", English sociologist Patricia Morgan pored through 144 academic papers and concluded that same-sex parenting fosters homosexual behavior and confused gender roles, and that such children often suffer serious psychological problems later in life.

Yet the AAP authors were not familiar with the Lerner/Nagai study, and didn’t wait for the Morgan book. While AAP cited the USC study, Stacey admits "as long as you have a closet, there’s non-discernable count". Lead AAP author Ellen Perrin admits "We need more longitudinal research to see effects of different kinds of family structures".

In other words, there is very little data, conflicting reports, and almost no review of contrary evidence, yet everyone is taking sides. But why would an academic institution like the AAP make a sweeping one-sided policy statement likely to be used in pediatric guidance and more importantly - tomorrow’s court cases? It appears the AAP has slipped into the trap of politics.

People generally expect a non-partisan stance when an organization like AAP endorses a practice or social movement that affects children. Yet recently, the AAP has taken decidedly liberal stances on numerous issues - in favor of gun control, and against mandated parental disclosure for children seeking abortions. Once again. it appears the AAP has assumed a political stance. If so, that calls into question the credibility of any AAP policy statements. In this case, with incomplete and conflicting evidence, children may be exposed to irreparable harm. Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics is willing to use orphans as little trophies for the political wars.

To be fair, AAP Chair Joseph Hagan points out "The AAP study concerns itself primarily with children who are already in the (gay) family. There are already special needs." Such as "health insurance, health decisions, legal responsibilities, inheritance, and such". Quite true, and not necessarily a direct endorsement of gay adoption. But the report’s attitude is quite clear. As Committee member Barbara Howard pondered, "Lesbian parented daughters may experiment (with lesbian sex) more than a control group, but is this necessarily a problem?" Apparently, not for the AAP.

For the rest of us, let’s admit that gay culture is more associated with gaudy in-your-face behavior of vocal gay radicals than Ozzie and Harriet. Toss in a few legitimate issues such as AIDS, promiscuity and missing role models, and the public forms opinions that favor a father-mother household over a gay household. So while you can’t pick your parents, society takes on a great responsibility when we must pick parents for children. That is why adoption is and should be a long, expensive, and complicated process. Every legitimate study shows the best indicator of a child’s happiness and success is a loving, responsible mother and father. That is still the best choice - not grandpa, not same-sex parents, and not single mothers, the single most highly correlated poverty factor for children.

The real question is, should orphans be given to loving gay parents or loving heterosexual parents? Until there is more of a consensus on the best choice, we cannot take a chance on a child’s life for the sake of political trophies.