Closing the essay, “A Civic People,” (ACP) posted on 11/14/2015, we promised an essay on how a people determine civic morality for the rule of [statutory] law. Civic morality is so well informed by people’s experiences and reason that most people naturally work for the benefits. For example, people don’t lie about their civic needs so that their statements can be understood and the response will not be lie-based. However, there will always be people who, for reasons that seem beneficial to them, are aliens to civic morality or a culture of civic people. To limit or control aliens or dissidents to civic morality, ACP employs [the-objective-truth].
["Civic" as used here is examined thoroughly below, but the essence is this: traditional "civic" refers to citizens conforming to social morality or civilization or the conventions of the city, whereas "civic" in civic morality refers to mutually appreciated connections/transactions between two persons living in this place. Since there are dissidents to civic morality, the city's responsibility is to provide and enforce statutory law that intends security for a civic culture.]
Let me address each of the ABA points:
[Consider Windsor vs US.]
No personal gods are involved in civic morality except insofar as the god inspires appreciation for other NRH personal gods. The object of the preamble to the constitution for the USA is to establish a republic with statutory law in civic justice--by the people of the United States who want personal-liberty-with-civic-morality--wherein the over-arching culture does not coerce opinion yet collaborates for each person to have safety and security in the broadest sense, so that he or she can earn opinion if and only if the-objective-truth has not been discovered by humankind.