Graham is not in that majority. He is very insightful, intelligent and enjoyable to carry on a discussion with, but he comes from a country with a different set of values and perceived needs on custody. He favors what we would call a rebuttable presumption of joint custody, which most states, including mine (FL), already have.
Your subject title asked what is most important to us, and I think we might all have slightly different answers to that question. Personally, I get deeply concerned and involved on move-away issues and parental alienation issues.
But the gist of what you seem to be seeking is a consensus on what it is that we can all agree on that we want. Nearly all of us agree on a rebuttable presumption of equal custody.
Tangential issues sidetrack us, so please understand that there are side-issues that we do NOT agree on here. For example, many believe that 50/50 custody should be the law because parental rights outweigh children's rights, constitutionally. Other's see the children's rights to both parents as paramount.
Some oppose the "best interests of the child" principle while others see it as the cornerstone of all reform. Some think the child should choose custody. Others think the child should be kept out of the conflict as much as possible.
Some think that the higher courts are the solution; others say the legislature is the answer. Some think the government should stay out of families' business while others see the intervention of the court as the only way to maintain order and protect parental contact.
Some see it all as gender bias while non-custodial mothers object to that approach. Some say that we should hunger strike, commit suicide or dress like comic book characters to get attention while others say that we should go through accepted channels of reform, however slow and frustrating, because it is more likely to succeed.
Good thing there is something that we all agree on and that is a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting. Does that help?