The Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear domestic relations cases unless the case also raises a tort or contract claim or, of course, unless it involves a Constitutional right (which is how the Court justified hearing Griswold, Loving, Eisenstadt, and even Roe).
I am against gay adoptions or gay "parenting" but - atleast at this time - this wasn't a case the Court should have granted cert. We don't want activist judges either, right?
True conservatives don't, in any case. Not sure about some folks around here, though.