Civil marriage licensing in Louisiana holds the conceiving couple responsible to and for their children. Congress has done nothing to amend DOMA’s neglect of children. States have not improved the civil marriage license respecting obligations to children. Setting religion aside, as it should be for civic debate, the ethics of human physics is instructive: Accordingly, a child has the right to the equality and dignity of being loved and reared by his/her couple perhaps enhanced by higher psychological maturities among his/her grandparents and families. Civic morality supports children’s rights according to human physics. There could be a different civic that ignores this heritage of monogamy, but its path would be hampered with surrogacy, artificial gender role playing or other education, and distraction from the statistically dominant heterosexual-monogamy option. Children who, as mature adults, would have opted for heterosexual-monogamy may find themselves, by becoming involved in the same-sex lifestyle, in obligations that prevent their opportunity for their preference. In other words, the perhaps 97% of children who would otherwise become heterosexual monogamists might find themselves obligated to same-sex lifestyle they would not have chosen. The fact that many couples are not faithful to heterosexual monogamy says nothing about the physics of parents, children, grandchildren and beyond: personal posterity. I only states that they were not faithful to physics, their initial vows, their spouse, their children, their grandchildren, and beyond. The affect of personal infidelity on the overall progress of humankind is not known. The chances for a human being to achieve and practice cooperative autonomy long enough to discover her/his person and develop psychological maturity--freedom from external constraints and internal contradictions--are narrow . . . if not slim . . . if not almost impossible. Chances are especially small if the person has, by age ten, been indoctrinated into an ideology or subjugation that represses the person’s autonomy. Personal autonomy might come at age thirty or so, collaborative autonomy at 45, and psychological maturity beyond 65 years of age. Self discovery takes a full lifetime, if achieved. Perhaps Mother Teresa had achieved psychological maturity.
Extant US governance vainly claims to be directed to the general welfare regardless of impact on a civic people. Some persons assert that government should provide for them--even protect them from want.Freedom from want is an image, not a practice; each person’s life is in her/his hands, and every person struggles for meaningful life during every personal decade. A civic people need awakening to the achievable combination no-harm personal liberty and domestic goodwill--PL&DG.
Nevertheless, I ask: at what point in a human life does equality and dignity apply, and when does personal autonomy prevail? And what does “equality” mean; does it refer to concern and respect? I think personal rights exist literally before conception: a civic people should provide governance that is inviting to the children to be born. Government is obligated to prepare the way for each person’s civic quest for personal autonomy leading to psychological maturity. Each person is free to negotiate personal accommodation and if injustice is discovered, change the civil order. The constitution for the USA does not grant to the administration, the Congress, and the Supreme Court the power to exclude the individual from changing his/her governance, regardless of the claims of, for example, Greece v Galloway (2014), which states that legislative prayer is for legislators, not for the people.
Unfortunately, the system is biased toward so-called “parent’s rights,” and the injustice of that tradition is argued by Marci Hamilton in her work and books. Also, John Rosemond, in "Equality . . . not fair (to the kids)." See www.parentguru.com/articles/view/1625?return=%2F . Yet, because each child has inalienable rights, the state takes charge of their welfare even if defaulting parents do not have a civil marriage license. Every imaginable deviation from civically moral parenthood occurs, including child sex-abuse, but civically immoral practices are neither justified nor condoned by the state and if discovered may lead to civil retribution.
But there is no excuse for civic endorsement of injustice. People who practice promiscuity during marriage-with-progeny adversely influence children and frequently divorce, increasing their progenies’ losses. Sometimes the promiscuity is incestuous. Also, when there is divorce and re-marriage, step-spouses often sexually abuse their step-children. Civic morality discourages both 1) divorce, especially to protect children and grand-children, and 2) remarriage, partially to discourage risk of sexual abuse by a step-spouse against his/her spouse’s child. Both divorce and remarriage are controversially discouraged by the Church; church doctrine could be enhanced by a review of the ethics of human physics. A civic people does not condemn those who fail, but it does not promote failure.