Well, good for you. I do respect that. And I do wish that those whose primary purpose is to complain about money would jump ship...the primary issue has to be about the equal right to parent for all involved biological progenitors who have not been proven unfit.
Correction, it's about equal protection. A father still has a superior right to the guardianship of his children, absent circumstances that would allow the state to interfere.
I understand it is your position that this right has somehow been stripped away, but the law has not changed. The power of the state under the parens patriae doctrine is often invoked unlawfully. That is the issue, and it requires the parent who walks out on a marriage without cause to walk away from the children as well. This is a natural incentive to work out differences to keep the family together. The so called "no-fault" divorce doesn't, by itself, give the court a justiciable issue regarding custody of the children. The standard of review is not the same.
No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The commonlaw designates homosexuality as an inherent evil, and if a person openly engages in such a practice, that fact alone would render him or her an unfit parent.
And:
Homosexual conduct by its very nature is immoral, and its consequences are inherently destructive to the natural order of society. Any person who engages in such conduct is presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children under the established laws of this State.
Call me homophobic, but I agree.