As a divorced dad and foster father, I can tell you that the reasoning that led to the state Supreme Court decision has very little to do with parents' "rights" and everything to do with the children's rights to have support from all parents involved in their conception. Today children from broken homes find a measure of protection in the fact that nearly all states have mandatory child support laws that are applicable across state lines. The era of the "deadbeat dad" is slowly coming to an end as men and women are being required by law to at least take financial responsibility for their children. However, please note that no state makes any connection between visitation or other legal rights and the requirement to make child support payments. In short, child custody and visitation rights are a completely separate issue from child support itself. Sure, a parent might try to refuse to pay child support because he or she hasn't seen the child, but states can and do still enforce mandatory payments regardless of visitation battles.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "group parent" situation that the blogger seems to fear is far less of an issue than our Christian obligation to take care of our families, regardless of when or how they came to us. A child without a father or mother is, for all intents and purposes, an orphan, and we are commanded many times in God's Word to take care of widows, orphans, and foreigners. We need to focus on that and stop being paranoid about "my three dads."

Well said Glenn.

"So, it seems that having multiple parents will soon become legally accepted practice." ... one mother + one father = multiple parents. Am I missing something?
And I agree with Glenn: if a new stepmother takes on a child's care and wishes to adopt it, does this mean the child's other mother should give up her parental rights? I see many more opportunities for three (or possibly four) legal parents amongst heterosexual parents, than amongst homosexual parents.