One of the top LGBT stories in the past week has been the Florida court ruling that found the state ban on adoption by lesbian and gay people was unconstitutional. The decision means that the two boys fostered by plaintiff Frank Martin Gill for the last four years are now his legally adopted sons.

Coverage of this decision has, however, largely overlooked an important point: the boys in fact have two committed, loving parents in their home, only one of whom is now legal. Gill has been fostering the four- and eight-year-old boys with his partner of eight years, whom the court documents call Tom Roe, Sr. Roe’s biological son (now 13 years old) was already in their home. According to the court ruling:

“John and James refer to Petitioner and Roe as ‘papi’ and ‘daddy’ respectively. . . . John and James are closely bonded to Tom Roe, Jr., and their extended family. The boys consider Petitioner and Roe’s parents, brothers and sisters their grandparents, uncles and aunts. The extended family sends the boys gifts for their birthdays and the holidays. Roe’s mother, who lives in Tampa, visits the family regularly.”

The two men decided to pursue an adoption of the foster children only for Gill, though, figuring it would be even harder to get a ruling in favor of a joint adoption by two men. The men plan to try for a second-parent adoption at a later date. (It is unclear if Roe’s biological son has another legal parent, or if Gill would pursue a second-parent adoption of him as well.)

Progress is often incremental, of course. Pursuing a single adoption was most likely the right strategic move. What this case reveals, however, are the many layers of restrictions that still bind LGBT citizens. For every bit of progress, there is more to be made.

Some might argue that if the two men were married, they could have jointly adopted the boys. That may be true, but we must be careful not to extend this thinking too far. Marriage equality is not always the solution to securing same-sex parenting rights.

It is easy to blur the lines between parental rights and marriage, however. Sex and the City actor Cynthia Nixon fell into this trap two weeks ago on Larry King Live (11/14/08) when she spoke out in favor of marriage equality.

Nixon, who has two children from a previous, opposite-sex relationship, said that if she got hit by a truck, her partner Christine Marinoni would have no legal rights to the children, even though she (Marinoni) is currently their stay-at-home mom. Nixon claimed that if she and Marinoni were married, Marinoni would have legal rights as their stepparent.

The fact is, though, that Nixon and the children’s biological father are the legal parents. Even for a married, opposite-sex couple, the stepparent would have no legal rights unless the non-custodial biological parent had given up his rights and allowed the stepparent to adopt the children. Nixon, her ex, and Marinoni could do this even now.

Nixon and Marinoni’s marriage alone would not give Marinoni any legal standing in relation to the children if Nixon died.

Note, too, that Nixon and her male ex never married–but he is still recognized as a  parent. (Thanks to LGBT family law expert Nancy Polikoff for confirming my analysis here.)

At the moment, too, marriage is not sufficient to provide widespread recognition to both same-sex parents in many places. If a married or civil unioned same-sex couple has a child in a state where their relationship is recognized, both members of the couple can be listed as parents on the birth certificate. States that do not recognize the adults’ relationship might not honor that birth certificate, however. LGBT legal organizations such as GLAD thus recommend that even married same-sex parents do a second-parent adoption or get a court order of parentage, which all jurisdictions should recognize.

Broader recognition of same-sex marriages (or civil unions equivalent in all but name) would alleviate this problem. Still, opposite-sex parents are not required to marry in order to gain parental rights. It seems unfair to require same-sex parents to do the same. Canada, which allows same-sex couples to marry, but also gives common-law partners almost identical rights as married couples, might be on the right track here, as Polikoff points out.

Many besides Nixon have argued for marriage equality because of the parenting rights it conveys. This connection is true only in a subset of cases, as we have seen. At other times marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient. It may be desired for other reasons, though, not least of which is to give one’s children a sense of equality.

Marriage rights are important, therefore, but they are not a panacea.

We need to keep reminding ourselves, our allies, and the public that there is more to LGBT rights than that, a message that risks being lost in all the post-election hoopla about the marriage props. The fact that we scored a win for parental rights last week in a state that just passed an anti-marriage amendment should remind us, too, that in many places we will gain parental rights first. (I won’t even get into hate crimes and employment discrimination here.)

We do not know, of course, whether the Florida ruling will stand up to appeal, or if Tom Roe will ever be a legal parent to his sons. If it does stand, it would still remain to be seen whether the increasing number of same-sex parents and their children would shift public opinion on marriage equality. Not right away, perhaps; but I’d like to think it would be a start.

Marriage equality and parenting rights may not be identical, but they will each help the other succeed.

Dana Rudolph is the founder and publisher of Mombian, a blog and resource directory for LGBT parents. She is not a lawyer, and nothing in the above article should be taken as legal advice. Her column exploring the intersection of politics and parenting appears every other Thursday at 365gay.com.