Why Should Family Policy Put Children First?

TL;DR

Family policy should begin with children’s rights and long-term well-being, according to Katy Faust, because children cannot effectively represent themselves in legal, cultural, or technological debates. She argues that marriage, surrogacy, divorce, and parenting arrangements should be judged by whether they protect a child’s relationship with both mother and father, even when doing so limits adult desires.

Transcript

this is a worldview that does not discriminate between single married gay straight fertile and infertile this is a world where if you're going to put children first all adults must conform to those fundamental rights let's wrestle that out that means that it is going to run up against all of our self-interest at some point I have a friend and he wa... Read More

Key Insights

• Children’s interests are easily overlooked because children cannot lobby, hire lawyers, submit legal briefs, speak at conferences, or choose the family structures created for them. Faust therefore sees independent advocacy for children as necessary in cultural, legal, and technological debates.
• Faust’s governing principle is that children’s rights to life and relationships with their mother and father should take priority over adult desires. She applies this standard to everyone, including single, married, gay, straight, fertile, and infertile adults.
• No adult has a right to a child, according to Faust, while every child has rights that adults must respect. This distinction underlies her objections to arrangements that intentionally separate children from a biological mother or father to fulfill adult wishes.
• Surrogacy raises a conflict between an adult’s desire to become a parent and a child’s interest in maintaining maternal and paternal connections. Faust opposes surrogacy regardless of the adults’ reasons, while Peterson tests that position through difficult questions about existence, infertility, and competing interests.
• Love is presented as necessary but insufficient for defining an ideal family. The discussion argues that affection alone does not replace the distinct relationships children have with a mother and father or settle questions about the ethical structure of family formation.
• Long-term, committed, monogamous, child-centered heterosexual marriage is defended as the family ideal in the conversation. Faust and Peterson connect that structure to stable child-rearing and argue that institutions should prioritize it when developing marriage, educational, and economic policy.
• Adult and child interests can align over the long term even when they conflict in the moment. Peterson distinguishes deeper self-interest from immediate hedonistic gratification, suggesting that sacrifice for children can support adult maturation, family stability, and broader social flourishing.
• Faust’s advocacy grew out of the marriage debate in Washington State and her perception that children’s interests were being neglected. Although she describes herself as highly agreeable and conflict-averse, she says perceived injustice toward children compelled her to enter public debate.

Questions & Answers

Q: Why should family policy put children first?

Family policy should put children first because children are affected by adult decisions but cannot effectively represent themselves in the institutions making those decisions. Faust notes that children cannot lobby, hire lawyers, submit legal briefs, publish opinion pieces, or speak at conferences. She therefore argues that marriage, parenting, reproductive technology, education, and economic policy should be evaluated according to children’s rights and long-term well-being.

Q: What rights does Katy Faust believe children have?

Katy Faust argues that children have a right to life and a right to relationships with their mother and father. She contrasts these claims with adult desires, insisting that nobody has a right to possess or obtain a child. Her framework asks adults across every relationship and fertility category to accommodate children’s fundamental interests, even when that requires personal sacrifice or limits available family-building choices.

Q: Why does Katy Faust oppose surrogacy?

Faust opposes surrogacy because she believes it intentionally places an adult’s desire for a child ahead of the child’s relationship with a biological parent. In her framework, creating a child does not give adults permission to design circumstances that require the child to lose or lack a mother or father. Peterson challenges this position by raising the question of whether existence through surrogacy is preferable to never existing.

Q: How does the discussion define the purpose of marriage?

The discussion presents marriage primarily as a child-centered institution rather than an arrangement created only for adult fulfillment. Faust and Peterson defend long-term, committed, monogamous heterosexual marriage as the ideal foundation for raising children. They argue that marriage should connect adults to obligations that protect children, while also acknowledging that the discipline, responsibility, and stability of marriage can benefit men, women, families, and society.

Q: Is love enough to define a family?

Love is treated as necessary but not sufficient for defining the ideal family. The discussion argues that affection between adults does not by itself answer whether a family structure protects a child’s interests or preserves relationships with both mother and father. Under Faust’s framework, family arrangements must be judged not only by adult intentions or emotional bonds, but also by the losses and obligations imposed on children.

Q: How can adult sacrifice for children serve adult interests?

Peterson argues that conflict between adult and child interests often reflects a narrow definition of self-interest centered on immediate gratification. A deeper and longer-term understanding of self-interest can align adults with children through responsibility, commitment, and maturation. On this view, sacrificing short-term desires for a child’s welfare is not necessarily self-destruction, because stable families and healthy children can support adult and social flourishing.

Q: Why are children vulnerable in debates about family structure?

Children are vulnerable because adults control the cultural, legal, and technological systems that determine family formation, while children have little power to contest those decisions. Faust says children cannot organize advocacy campaigns, hire legal representation, submit policy papers, or choose the circumstances of their conception and upbringing. This imbalance allows adult preferences to dominate unless someone explicitly represents children’s rights, interests, desires, and well-being.

Q: Why did Katy Faust become a children’s rights advocate?

Faust says the marriage debate in Washington State prompted her public advocacy. She describes herself as an evangelical Christian who is naturally agreeable, conflict-averse, and more inclined toward reconciliation than confrontation. However, she believed progressive arguments about marriage were overlooking harm and injustice toward children. That perception, combined with her conviction that children lacked representation, led her to found and lead Them Before Us.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Katy Faust presents a child-centered framework for evaluating marriage and family policy. Because children cannot lobby, hire lawyers, submit legal briefs, or choose their family structures, she believes adults must defend their interests. Her central principle is that children’s rights should take priority when those rights conflict with adult desires.

• Faust argues that children have a right to their mother and father, while adults do not have a right to obtain a child. This position leads her to oppose surrogacy and question same-sex parenting arrangements. Peterson presses her on difficult cases, including whether creating a child can justify planned parental separation.

• The discussion connects family structure with personal and social flourishing. Faust and Peterson defend long-term, committed, monogamous, child-centered heterosexual marriage as the ideal environment for raising children. They distinguish immediate gratification from deeper self-interest and argue that adult sacrifice for children can ultimately benefit individuals, families, and society.