The State Court of Appeals ruled that a nonadoptive, nonbiological caretaker of a child could be allowed to ask for custody and visitation rights.
The fact that New York, a state that accepted gay marriage before the Supreme Court ruling, had not extended the definition of parenthood earlier is in truth odd to conceptualize. Gay marriage gives same sex couple the same benefits that traditional marriage gives traditional couples, and although before the debate around conception was a divisive factor in granting same sex couples the right to marry, it is inexplicable to hear that those courts did not extend the benefit of parenting along with marriage.
Even more so, this issue deals primarily with children, meaning their well-being is and should be the driving force for the decision. Realistically, even in a non same sex marriage situation, for example, a biological parent and non-biological parent who is not related by blood, marriage, or adoption, if the child perceives this person as their parent, tearing that relationship apart is detrimental to the child.
Because it is a prevalent factor in same-sex marriages, the extension of parenting seems like it should be a given, especially with the Supreme Court’s ruling last year. Though even before then,because this deals with children, and it can be applicable outside of same sex marriage, the extension of parenting should have been recognized nationally far before.
There is no explanation for why it should not be.