I'm not sure I understand this quote:

Focus on the Family, an influential Christian group that has provided crucial political support to President Bush, released a statement that criticized child rearing by same-sex couples.

"Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children," the group's director of issues analysis, Carrie Gordon Earll, said in a statement. "Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean it's the best for the child. Love can't replace a mom or a dad."

"Love can't replace a mom or a dad."

Generally, I would think that love, whether it comes in the form of a mom and dad, or two women in a loving relationship, would be better than no love. Or that a loving home populated by two "moms" would be worlds better than a "traditional" family without love, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a married mom and dad, no matter the circumstances, is the way it's supposed to be, and always better than any other alternative, no matter what, which seems to be what she's saying. But frankly, I don't agree.

Sure, a loving marriage between a man and a woman, a loving, happy homelife, is the way we would hope all children would be raised, but that's just not the way it is. In the world today, I think we take love where we can get it, and if two women want to have a family and raise a child in a loving environment, more power to them.

Mary Cheney Expecting a Baby With Her Partner - New York Times