Maybe-- gay adoption has a lot more public support and this law is decades-old. So unlike CA's marriage ban, the court didn't pass something people just voted down, and then have it narrowly get amended to the state Constitution.
In polls, approval or neutrality for gay adoption is usually a few points higher than for gay marriage, so in 2003 we were evenly divided on the issue, now there's a narrow margin of approval. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay...ion/index.html
In the poll they reference from 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/27/poll.gay/index.html
57% thought gay people should be allowed to have children.
You can also make a much more heartwrenching case for this-- the case that got this overturned is one example. With marriage, you can argue that civil unions are "equal" in the law. With adoption, there are tons of parents out there who have no rights over the children they have had for years and who have children that call them 'dad' and 'mom' but who can't take them on vacation out of state, can't make medical decisions, have to ask the state's approval of everything. The children's well-being is at stake here.
This makes the conversation have to be about whether gay people should be allowed to foster or adopt at all, a much more polarizing discussion and one the homophobes are much more likely to lose. That would be comparable to the marriage debate being about whether gay people are allowed to date.