Why include the 4 outliers and then specifically call them out for each having the same "flaw" in the data? I'd imagine there were many more that likely included similar details to those 4, but didn't meet their criteria for inclusion in this report. Seems like if they didn't solely include kids being raised by same sex parents it wouldn't need to be included. Oh well.
This is what I found interesting as well. They include them based on their "selection criteria", but then call them for being flawed. If they are "flawed", then doesn't that bring into question their selection criteria in the first place?
I would like to know what other studies they looked at and didn't include, and for what reason(s).
In the end all this is, like you said OP, is a sort of aggregate. They even conclude that;
"Inclusion of a study
does not constitute an endorsement of its conclusions by Columbia Law School or by the faculty, staff or board of the What We Know project, which does not take policy positions, which which summarizes the state of the research in our “Overview” section."
All-in-all, a really fancy way of saying that "we found a shit load of studies that suggest kids of gay/lesbian parent's aren't at a disadvantage, but we're not the real experts / researchers so we don't actually endorse the individual study findings".
Not to be an asshole, but when little Billy is getting picked up from school by his two daddies, Dylan and Connor, you have to think he's going to get the shit teased / bullied out of him, and for some of those kids, that's going to develop some mental health issues along the way.