After initially reading the article, I fully agree with this bill. Many children are placed in situations at the onset of life where they're passed along between two nuclear families or have two father or two mother figures because of divorce. It then makes sense to say that these parental figures deserve the legal rights of a parent for the benefit of the child.
Why should any of the people described in the paragraph above be denied legal parental rights? Don't mention a myopic slippery-slope fallacy, life doesn't work like that. The reactions on here make the Atlas seem like a bunch of conventional fundamentalists who can't stand any sort of filial structure outside of the nuclear family.
