Barbara Roessner investigates a bizarre case where a child is to be adopted by two women...

The argument for gay marriage can seem awfully abstract at times, even to those of us who make it often and vociferously. By all means, love whom you choose. Have a wedding. Exchange vows, rings, a lifetime bond, a slice of cake. But is it really worth going through the hassle of obtaining a legal sanction -- all the attorney's fees, the courtroom debates, the onslaught of public bigotry? Why not just tie your own knot, without the state's stamp of approval, and be happy? But then along comes a case like that of Baby Z. The consequences of a homosexual union outside the realm of law suddenly become stark. And the would-be benefits of a state-sanctioned gay family -- a discrete unit with all the rights, responsiblities and social integrity that go with it -- also become clear. Without the legal license so many gay couples now seek, and are routinely denied, who ultimately suffers? The kids. Baby Z was born to a lesbian couple in Connecticut through artificial insemination. But only one of his two moms -- the one who carried him in her body -- is legally his parent. The other mother wants to adopt him, but the courts have said no, not unless his biological mother gives up her parental rights. Baby Z, under current adoption laws, isn't technically "free" to be adopted. Were his two parents legally married, though, he would be. Those same adoption laws include special provisions for stepparents to adopt their spouses' biological offspring. Baby Z is relegated to a familial limbo, simply because the state -- and society -- won't recognize his parents as a legitimate couple. It has lately become fashionable, and rightfully so, to navigate the thicket of child custody disputes -- whether they're the result of a simple divorce, surrogate motherhood, frozen embryos, foster care or adoption -- by using "the best interest of the child" as a singular guide. Is it in Baby Z's best interest, then, to have the community at large refuse to recognize his family unit as "exemplary" -- the term used by a Yale professor who conducted a home study for the courts? If his biological mom were to die, is it right for this child to be left a legal orphan, his status to be decided by a probate court? There are other benefits to gay marriage, as well as the more widely accepted domestic partner status for gay couples now being considered in New York City. Bringing legal order to family life -- whether it's health benefits, parking permits, membership in the local town swimming pool, hospital and prison visitation rights, succession rights in public housing -- only enhances the stability of the individuals and social institutions involved. And yet such proposals breed endless argument and public controversy. Witness New York's John Cardinal O'Connor using the pulpit last Sunday for a stinging denunciation of the latest battle for gay rights in the Big Apple. But perhaps the Baby Z case -- heard last week by the Connecticut state Supreme Court -- provides those on various sides of the gay marriage debate with some small patch of common ground. The best interest of the child? If that's what we really do care most about, the answer to Baby Z's dilemma is as simple as the case is currently complex: Recognize his two mothers' union as committed, loving, stable -- and legal.