On what basis do you make this claim? Can you successfully demonstrate that not allowing adoption of a child by a second same-sex guardian is “sabotaging the stable, loving, committed two-parent families” of the world?
Sabotage implies intent, so even though we can recognize that not recognizing same-sex couples can cause hassle and problems for same-sex couples who have a child, I think it’s hard to demonstrate that the government is intentionally sabotaging such people solely based on the fact that they don’t statutorily accept same-sex parents.
In every state in the United States you can explicitly designate who you wish to be guardian of your child when you die.*
In every state in the United States you can explicitly designate how you wish your estate to be divided up when you die.
Saying “her family could contest the will and leave Samuel and Mary with nothing” is true of any will even a will where a wife leaves everything to her husband and children and vice versa. Adding that in as though it actually means something is ridiculous. Every will can be contested.
*Obviously if a husband and wife have a child and the wife dies, the wife can’t specify the child is to be raised by her brother, the husband’s innate parental rights would almost certainly preclude such an arrangement lest he consented.
Then that’s what we need to change. We need to stop regarding those pieces of paper as the be-all, end-all. So far as I can tell, Mary Cheney and Heather Poe are married, and Samuel Cheney has two parents. Let’s start acting like it. No, they don’t yet have a piece of paper to that effect, but the only way they’ll get such a piece of paper admitting that they’re married is if we as a society first recognize that fact.