Amend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, Into The U.S. Constitution

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:58:08 +0000

A true “patriotic” conservative is more than just an “arm-chair champion” for moral, ethical values and opponent of every liberal ideology that underminds this country’s traditional founding values that defines a true, redstate, red-blooded American.

A true conservitive is highly motivated and has the courage, integrity, duty and honor to do everything possible to ensure America’s future to make and continue to be a positive influence on American society on behalf of future generations.

Please sign and share this petition asking The House of Representatives and The Senate to, move legistation submitted more than 2 years ago and still awaiting further action, out of comittee to amend the (DOMA) Defense of Marriage Act into the U.S. Constitution.

Thank You.

http://www.change.org/petitions/amend-the-defense-of-marriage-act-into-the-u-s-constitution

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REVEALS SAME-SEX ATTRACTION A BIOLOGICAL DISORDER

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:18:31 +0000

Researchers have revealed that a “biological” medical disorder, developed in the womb, is the cause of same-sex attraction and is passed down from father to daughter and mother to son. The finding, inadvertently, shed new light that the homosexual lifestyle is indeed a lifestyle choice since the homosexual lifestyle is based on a person’s “same-sex attraction biological medical disorder”. Because of modern day enhanced genetic medical testing capabilities, concerns have already risen that elective abortions may increase sharply to avoid the birth of a baby having this defect.

From the religious perspective, In Matthew Chapter 19, Christ Jesus, God’s only Begotten Son, makes it transparently clear that, His Father, God, The Head of All Principalities and Power, and from who, all God fearing people recognize to have divine and absolute authority, has declared and defined marriage to be the “union” of one man and one woman and that any sexual relationship outside that of a male and female “marital” relationship is adultery and fornication which now, “undoubtedly”, and “intrepidly” includes, the homosexual lifestyle.

Because of this scientific finding, the social perspective of the homosexual and on the issue of “same sex marriage” has been forced to “evolve”. Having scientifically found the cause of “same sex attraction”, as a “Same-Sex Biological Medical Disorder, scientist has effectively removed ”same sex attraction” as a viable argument for gay activist to use in redefining and justifying the social acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and promote the recognition of its’ own “Civil Rights”, to require corrective behavioral therapy and began research for a medical cure for the same sex attraction biological disorder. Yet, the gay community continues to insist and argue, to oppose and not socially recognize the homosexual community and homosexual lifestyle practice as being acceptable normal sexual behavior between two consenting adults, worthy of legislated “Gay Civil Rights” and social “Marriage Equality” to include the social acceptance of a homosexual couple as a “family unit”, is bigotry,hatred and discrimination against the individual homosexual, and gay community alike.

(Read the original ground breaking press release below.)

Article: Homosexuality Isn’t Genetic, but It Is Biological

By David Wagner

The Atlantic Wire – Tue, Dec 11, 2012

”Homosexuality isn’t genetic after all. But don’t start saying this proves it’s a “lifestyle choice,” fundamentalists. Researchers from UC Santa Barbara andUppsalaUniversityfound a biological basis for same-sex attraction, locating the origins of homosexuality in the womb. Epi-marks, the genetic switches that regulate how our genes express themselves, can be passed down from mother to son or father to daughter while the fetuses gestate, the researchers found, adding that certain “sexually antagonistic” epi-marks may also be involved. [io9] ”

http://news.yahoo.com/science-homosexuality-isnt-genetic-biological-232225880.html?bcmt=1355282394908-b361ef98-688c-4d0e-8bcb-6fe8dcec005f_0000cs000000000000000000000000-4fbc92b8-49e8-4ff3-81e4-aa4d03fd11f9&bcmt_s=eArticle;Science: (Accessed 3:52 cst pm Dec. 13, 2012)

IS ABORTION LEAGALIZED MURDER?

Sat, 20 Oct 2012 23:47:42 +0000

At some point during the pregnancy process the fetus is considered a life, (common sense no degree required on that logical thinking, but when this actually happens is at the heart of the disagreement on this issue).

Because the fetus is in fact eventually at some point considered life, although many believe it is after being born, “I don’t”, it also, therefore, at some point, has a “right to life”, which literally makes the abortion issue about women having the authority to choose between “life or death” of a ”baby” instead about a woman’s right to control her own body because the undeniable fact is that abortion “prevents” a baby from being born. Think about it, the opposite of “life” “is” “death”.

Personally, I believe the only two people qualified or even should have the authority to make life and death decisions is God and a licensed medical doctor. But also, I find it “callous and selfish” to even “risk the possibility that willfully terminating the growth development process of an unborn just might be murder” rather than “avoiding the possibility altogether.”

University of Texas (U.T) & u.S. Supreme Court Affirmitive Action

Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:02:07 +0000

In the UT case of affirmative action, The U.S. Supreme court actually thinks that under certain circumstances “race” can be used as a determining factor for the purpose of admissions without it being “bias” discrimination. (Unbelievable) The attorney presenting the case stated that the “uncorralled” or “unchecked” use of “race” for admissions is indeed “bias” discrimination that violates students right to equal protection under the law.(The fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution), and should not be used by the university to promote its’ own agenda such as graduation rate, etc., whatever the university’s priorities may be.

I say that “any” use of race, religion, culture, heritage, etc, that has nothing to do with a person I.Q., personal ability, passion, preferences, should be used in “any” situation such as college admission, employment, or any decision making process used to fill a position, and if the U.S. Supreme Court simply insisted on the use of race, etc, as a factor, it should be used “only” as a last resort where all applicants are equally qualified across the board, with no greater significant determining eligibility and to use it to only fill an opening that is lacking in numbers in such arenas of race, religion, culture, heritage, etc. in an attempt to be fair to all people.

The First Presidential Debate Overview

Thu, 04 Oct 2012 03:34:33 +0000

The First Presidental Debate

The Role Of Government was the main issue that people should focus on when voting in November 6th Election because Barack Obama’s ideology is government control and influence at every level of society which is nothing less than “Socialism, and Mitt Romney is dedicated to insuring the people’s most basic Constitutional right to “self-govern” through a democratic government and “Republic”. (Supporting References are given below.)

(Barack Obama, “advice from anyone who advances the middle class, that’s how we repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,) (the government has the capacity to open up opportunity for success)
(Mitt Romney, “The U.S. Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, to protect life, liberty and freedoms, and pursuit of happiness, and the government not substitute its’ agenda for the people’s freedom to pursue their dreams.)

I was shocked to hear the president say that he would accept the advice of anyone who advances the middle class. In other words no “collaborative” effort as long as the advice advances his “own” liberal agenda and called republican ideology “extreme”. I must agree very strongly with Mitt Romney, this nation is certain to sucomb to unrecoveralbe economic hardship and in my opinion,complete government control through “Socialism” if Barack Obama is re-elected to another four years.
________________________________________________________________________________

Barack Obama claims that he has received advice from both Democrats and Republican but refuses to accept any of the offered advise.

He acknowledges the economic issue but says the money saved from the war can be reallocated. The budget must first be balanced before that will work.

Mitt Romney offered his five point plan, while Barack Obama offered no specific plan but goals to achieve.

Mitt Romney believes that supporting small business, becoming energy independent, and better education leads to success. He offers the pipeline and less regulations, and offers no tax cut that adds to the deficit.

Barack Obama claims that he cut taxes for the middle class by $3600.00 to invest and spend more money into circulation. He claims the Mitt Romney offers a tax cut by closing loop holes and deductions without explanation of how to do it, but also says it is impossible to do so without taxing the middle class, (top down)

Mitt Romney rebuts Barack Obama analysis of his economic plan and re explains that he will not reduce taxes on the high income but will on lower income and says that taxes would increase on the lower income earners under Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney explains through attempted control of the debate by Mr. Lehrer.

Barack Obama claims Mitt Romney’s economic plan is nothing more than arithmetic.

Mitt Romney says the president’s plan is to take 3% business from 35% to 40%, at a cost of 700,000 jobs because smaller business employ over 50% of the work force.

Barack Obama claims that people will be “picking up the tab” on Mitt Romney’s plan.

Barack Obama claims the plan that Bill Clinton had done is what he is offering to America. He claims we should all do a little more.

Mitt Romney claims his plan has never been used before, making a clear difference between Barack Obama’s plan and a new direction for this country.

How do you go about tackling the deficit in this country?

Mitt Romney says that carrying over such a deficit is a moral issue. Barack Obama is not a huge fan of moral values.

Mitt Romney will prioritized programs, subsidies and eliminate unessential borrowing, make government cut backs, and downsizing non essential areas.

Barack Obama says that he inherited an enormous, unprecedented hardship, but has done the same that Mitt Romney claims he wants to do. Says that he worked with both Democrats and Republicans to cut discretionary spending. (Really!?)

Again he asks people to do more, namely the rich and wealthy, and says that spending cuts and more from the wealthy is the answer.

Simpson Bowls, the president should have grabbed it , but the president didn’t, Mitt Romney. The president says that he made some adjustment to the plan. Mitt Romney says that the president had four years to make some kind of difference and has failed to do so, and in fact the economy is moving slower than when he first took office by killing jobs.

Barack Obama says that there has to be revenue along with cuts. Really? This is why we need cuts. Moderator: Mr. President you are saying it needs to be balanced. ( I thought he was to moderate, not explain intended reasoning..

Barack Obama claims Mitt Romney isn’t specific enough but offers no specifics for himself but a non specific “balanced approach”.

If we are asking for no revenue means cutting programs, and claims hard choices need to be made. (Well, yes, if we don’t have the money, cut it.)

Mitt Romney tells Barack Obama, the investment into green energy has increased the deficit. $90 Billion dollars, not the kind of policy we need, and a break for shipping jobs over seas, Medicaid dollars need to go to state control not legislated at the Federal Government level.

Entitlements:

Barack Obama, : a somewhat similar position as Mitt Romney Barack Obama says. The values behind this issue, he speaks about his grandmother was independent because of Medicaid and medicare, and calls this some sense of Independence.

$716 Billion cut by not overpaying providers and lowered prescription drugs and increased quality patient care. (Many people disagree with this.)

Mitt Romney;

Neither the president or I are encouraging any changes to these programs to older people, but in fact Pres. Obama is cutting quality by reducing the compensation to care providers and that doctors are saying they will no longer accept medicaid and medicare if the rates are adjusted, and $716 Billion cut from medicare to finance Obamacare is not beneficial.

Barack Obama says that Mitt Romney’s plan will cost people to come out of their own pocket because of inflation. He speculates that doctors will discriminate between the young and the old because of the compensation difference and the neglect will eventually cause the collapse of Medicaid and medicare any way. (speculation)

Mitt Romney says that he prefers that government not be telling him what kind of medical care he is eligible for.

Barack Obama says that profit making keeps rates high and a voucher system put the elderly at risk and references AARP who by the way endorses same sex marriage and the homosexual lifestyle.

Mitt Romney, regulation is essential, but should not be excessive. Banks have been closed because of Dod Frank, and would replace it.

Barack Obama, economic crises was caused by reckless behavior across the board and gave examples and therefore claims he has brought reform to curtail this behavior. He claims that every loan to the banks that was bailed out was repaid. (hmmm. I wonder.)

Mitt Romney says that he would not bail out banks because they are simply too big to fail. Dod Frank did not come out with clear regulation to prevent such reckless behavior.

Affordable care act

Mitt Romney wants to repeal Affordable care act and gives example of business’ dropping health care benefits and says that it is expensive. It cuts $716 Billion from medicare, it puts a board over personal health care and it is an obstacle in business owners hiring people because of the extra cost of $2,500.

Barack Obama, says families were worried of having no coverage without an income and insurance companies dictating limitations. Says people can keep their own insurance, says setting up a group plan. (making it affordable), the irony, brings up Romney Care, an identical model, and praises Romney’s achievement.

Romney, I like the way we did it in Mass., but what Obama did is push a bill through congress without the cooperation of congress, not so in Mass., and in Mass. There were no bad affects like that of the Affordable Care Act. Something this big needs to be on a bipartisan idea.

Barack Obama says it was a bipartisan idea and claims it is the same plan, however, Mitt Romney made a great point, he didn’t force his Mass. Health care plan without the support of the legislature.

Barack Obama then refocuses on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act and implies that a board is the best way to keep rates affordable. Claims that Mitt Romney should be more clear on his solution to the health care issue.

Mitt Romney, pre existing conditions are covered, young people can stay on parents plans, but mutual agreement is to bring cost down, but a board isn’t the solution, people having the power to shop around in a private sector forcing care givers to compete with each other is the solution to keeping rates and cost down. Congress can not mandate lower cost.

Barack Obama, Mitt Romney’s plan can’t cover pre existing coverage. Claims there is no better way to address the issue of health coverage, then reviews Mitt Romney’s campaign promises without a clear plan to do so, but says the choice he gives benefits the middle class.

Mitt Romney, rebuts by saying he will get more done by working together with congress instead of by passing them, and gives references and alternatives to achieving his plans, and says his plan does cover pre-existing conditions.

Role of Government

Barack Obama, there are differences, the first role is to keep the American people safe, (really!?)

He believes the government has the capacity to open up opportunity for success, references Abraham Linclon’s achievements and wants to apply those same principles, not a top down reform, but will give money as a reward incentive for success. (a reward system is still government rule and control)

Mitt Romney, The U.S. Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, to protect life, liberty and freedoms, and pursuit of happiness, and the government not substitute its’ agenda for the people’s freedom to pursue their dreams. The primary purpose of government is at the local level and then the federal level. Federal funds should follow the child and let the parents decide.

Barack Obama, have worked with both Democrat and Republican gov.’s for education but claims Mitt Romney wishes to benefit the rich and is not clear on his plan of action. Barack Obama offers no long term solution of these issues he raises. Barack Obama claims that government should subsidies student loans. (This is nothing more than deeper debt to the government and when the “gatekeeper” is corrupt, no one gets out of debt and remains under the oppression of the government.)

Mitt Romney, I do not claim to cut education funding, but the facts show $90 Billion dollars could have hired a lot of teachers. The government should not be picking winners and losers, but how do we make the private sector to become more efficient and better educate our children. Mass. Children are ranked number 1 in the nation because he cares about education.

Partisan gridlock,

Mitt Romney, on day one I will sit down with both parties and talk about the issue to work on a collaborative bases, the reason I am in this race is because people are hurting and both parties care, but we need leadership that can bring both them together, and will do because he has done it before.

Barack Obama claims he will take advice from anyone who advances the middle class, that’s how we repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and other things like Osama Bin Laden, and even perhaps the Defense of Marriage Act. (apparently, advice must meet his own liberal ideology, and not what the majority consent of the governed says, and what Mitt Romney is committed to protecting the people’s right to self govern.) Barack Obama claims any advice that does not line up with his own ideology is “extreme”.

Barack Obama says that he fights every single day for the American people. (really!?) By ignoring the majority consent of the governed!?

Mitt Romney, two paths, one path a middle class squeeze, continued unemployment and implementation of Obamacare will cause unprecedented economic hardship and reduced medical services availability and dramatic cuts and weakening of the U.S. military if Barack Obama is re-elected, and he is, of course, correct.

The Right To Self Govern

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:26:30 +0000

The Right To Self Govern

The Declaration of Independence of the United States from England said that the people has the right change government if that government became “destructive” to the freedoms and liberties of the people. Simply stated, the people have the right to self govern through a government that is of the people, for the people and by the people.
The Fourteenth amemdment prevents the embridgement of and protects the right of the people to self govern from government and government officials, therefore the “majority consent of the governed” can make changes to any state level constitution or U.S. Constitution without the consent or approval of “any” judical court and especially the Federal Court of Appeals of any district, but the Federal Court of Appeals in different districts have continually made it a practice of violating the right of the people to self govern by over ruling the people’s referendum of “Constitutional Convention”, the majority consent of the govern’s constitutional right to make amendments to state constitutions and even to the U.S. Constitution.
Indeed federal courts are appointed by the “government” but only to interpret and enforce the U.S. Constitution as it stands “and” the changes that “We The People” make to them, but the courts do not have the authority to require it’s approval of such changes to any constitution when those changes are dictated through the people’s referandum, the will of the people, regardless of the U.S. appeals court’s interpretation of such changes. To do so is to “rule” over the people instead of “govern” by consent of the people and every time that happens the democratic government, or ”right to self-government”, becomes a socialist rule.
Never the less, such infringements to our right to self govern continues to exist by not complaining to state and national government officials of this enormous intrusion of civil rights that is imposed on such a grand scale.
Propostion 8, California’s referandum to define marriage between one man and one woman, is just such an example and after the judical appeals court returns from their four month “holiday”, another Federal Courts of Appeals will, yet again, be inclined to repeat this infringement and embridgement of the people’s right to self-govern, that is, unless ”We The People, have finally had enough of the Socialist judicial liberalism activism controlling this nation and demand that this destructive government change and once again respect the people’s basic right to self-govern.

“Liberalism”. The New Socialist America?

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:06:10 +0000

Liberalism. The New Socialist America? With the Democratic party having moved so far to the left and now having such an extreme liberal ideology, I was certainly surprised to find out that there are still people in the Democratic Party that hold to conservative values. Knowing this is very, very encouraging because the “liberal” ideology is all about a “socialistic” approach to government. The liberal ideology believes that civil and constitutional rights that ensures “equality” are legislated by government instead of endowed by God, “our Creator”. Liberal ideology believes in the “Robinhood” approach of redistributing the wealth, take from the rich and give to the poor. That’s stealing any way one looks at it. The rich have a right to investment earnings as much as people have a right to their own earned paycheck. The “liberal” ideology prioritizes the rights of the individual over what is in the best interest of the whole nation and sets its’ own ethical and moral standards to have the freedom to do whatever it wants in society. And, most of all, the “liberal” ideology is convinced that government, not the majority consent of the governed, should have the last say on how the people will live, believe, the laws of the land and place limits on the freedoms we have. We all know what type of government is described here, it is called “Socialism”. This is the “Dark Ages” this country came from and the future liberals want for this country and yet Democrats claim its’ the Republicans that are tyring to drag this country back to “Dark Ages”.

“We The People” Self-Govern

Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:24:56 +0000

The California Supreme court’s ruling of “In re Marriage Cases” established the constitutional right of same sex couples to marry. Proposition 8 , known as “California Marriage Protection” was voted on by the “Majority Consent of the Governed” in California’s 2008 November state elections and overturned, through “Constitutional Convention” amendment, California’s Supreme court “judicial legislated right” of same sex couples to marry.

The people of the United States can exercise “Constitutional Convention”, as well, through two thirds of state legislatures and amend the United States Constitution without the approval of the U.S. president.

I don’t know what the requirements are in California, but apparently, those requirements were met and the people of California overruled the California Supreme Court. On August 4, 2010, Proposition 8 was yet overturned by the “Federal” Judge, Vaughn R. Walker, who himself is gay, in the case
Perry v. Schwarzenegger claiming that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. An injunction was issued preventing the enforcement of Proposition 8 and a stay to determine the suspension of the ruling pending appeal, however, On February 7, 2012, in a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker’s decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional. On June 5, 2012, by a majority, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals refused a petition for rehearing “en banc and stayed the ruling again pending appeal. On July 30, 2012, another petition was filed for “certiorari with the U.S. Supreme court requesting a review of the case and a response is due by August 31, 2012.

After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means has been the subject of much debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.

A Judge in Hawaii recently refused to overturn the state’s constitution banning the recognition of same sex marriage. The judge, and rightfully so said, we have a “democracy” that the people follow and that he could not legislate such changes to the state’s constitution from the bench. He’s is so right. The case now goes to, guess where? It goes to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Folks, the same sex marriage isn’t about a “constitutional right” or “equal protection under the law or due process”. The issue is about, just who determines and who has the last say in what those rights are and if “equal protection and due process” on any certain issue exists in the first place?

From prior experience, apparently, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals judges thinks that the judicial system has the last say. The Hawaii judge disagrees. He has ruled that, We The People, have the last say through “Constitutional Convention” and he is right, because if the Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of the people from “abridgment by state leaders and governments, it most assuredly protects the right of the people to “self-govern” from abridgment of the Federal Judicial system as well. If it doesn’t then, in reality, all we really have governing us is a socialist totalitarian type government.

The question is, How do We The People, ensure our right to self-govern when a governing authority, the Federal Judicial system in this case, becomes “destructive” to our most basic foundational right as a nation to self-govern and over reaches its’ authority to impose its’ own set of ideology and values on to the people when those governing authorities are supposed to be “For the people,of the people and by the people”? Perhaps “We The People” should insist that all elected officials follow the precedent that our liberal U.S. President and several state governors has already set in opposing and refusing to enforce existing laws in support of same sex marriage,and refuse to acknowledge or enforce any ruling of the Federal Judicial Court System that clearly usurps authority over the Will of the People’s and infringes upon our most foundational right and freedom to self-govern afforded to us by the United States Constitution. It clearly makes sense to me.

American Patriotism & The Dream Act

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:46:42 +0000

Allow me to introduce myself, I am ”patriot63″.

There are so many varying viewpoints on the immigration issue. One viewpoint is that of sympathy and compassion resulting in several different solutions being offered.

One such example is the “No-Fault Path To Citizenship”.

Still, others agree that the Dream Act should be fully implemented and to do anything less is to be less than what makes us Americans as a whole citing this nation was built through immigration.

But consider this, regardless of whose fault or blame it might be or who is an innocent bystander and victim of circumstance, regardless of how America arrived to such a point in time that the immigration issue can no longer be ignored because of this nation’s poor and declining economy, providing any pathway to citizenship for any number of illegal immigrants would be the same as forcing a newly wed couple with a new born baby to become foster parents when that family is just barely financially able to make ends meet and take care of themselves.

Full deportation of illegal immigrates may appear to be heartless and a of lack compassion on the surface, but if the immigration issue is to be effectively addressed it must be put into proper perspective, and the issue must be properly prioritized even if being illegal in the country is due to “No-Fault Of Their Own”.

More than that, I take issue with any person or representative who condones the practice of “fraud” by illegal immigrants by saying illegal immgrants who have an education should be allowed to remain in the country. These people committed “fraud” ,for pete’s sake, to achieve the social and economic status they now enjoy. Not only did they break the law to enter the country they continued to break the laws of the land so that they could remain and to this day still have the support of both the Federal Government and U.S. Citizens to do it. That, in itself, should not be ignored, especially when called into remembrance that the opportunity to achieve was stolen, entitled or misappropriated, etc. away from ”legal”, U.S. Citizens, and legal Children who will never again have the same opportunity to achieve, or the same opportunity for success because illegal immigrants were made a higher priority and given immunity, not only for entering the country, uninvited, but also committed fraud of unwarranted education and many years of illegally earned wages and social benefits.

I personally prioritize the ”Constitiutional” rights of “Legal” U.S. Citizens over the “fundemental” rights of “Illegal” immigrants. This is called, “American Patriotism,”.

One of the toughest decisions that many people in America and in U.S. Congress refuse to make is to be an American Patriot, above all else.

Being and American Patriot has nothing to do with lack of compassion, racial profiling or racism.

It has everything to do with properly prioritizing the”Commonwealth”, above all else.

America, prioritzes the rights of ”We The People” above all else.

”American Patriotism”

The Voice Of The People

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:16:34 +0000

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a “two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a “constitutional convention” called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures and since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). What this means is, if the President of the United States refuses to uphold his oath of office, just as President Obama did when he refused to enforce the“Defense of Marriage Act”(DOMA), and a U.S. Congress Committee fails to put forth an amendment in the form of a joint resolution, just as the House Judiciary Committee has and is still doing to prevent a vote to amend the United States Constitution defining marriage to be the union between one man and one woman, the citizens of the United States can have their state legislatures demand and force the U.S. Congress to do so through “Constitutional Convention” and bring forth a joint resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution and the United States President is powerless to do anything about it. Please contact your state representatives and demand a “Constitutional Convention” forcing a “joint resolution” from the U.S. Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to recognize marriage as the union between one man and one woman.