Hi Hafiz and Miguel,
I have to put my thoughts in here about the Same sex marriages. Hey they are living together anyhow, what is the big deal. They have rights too. But behind this their is so much more. We hear of so much more of this now, or is because the coming outs are just coming out? I don't believe the Divine Creator made a mistake of man and woman was creation. However, I do believe that what I read a few months ago is the DNA was changed which is causing the same sex relationships. This makes sense to me. If you think of all the things that the Cabal has done to mankind, why not mess with the DNA. These people can not help how they are, same as we can not change our height.

I use to feel and think like you have mentioned, but after hearing the DNA was changed to cause the problems. How do you think these folks feel. Lets put ourselves in their shoes, what would you do?

Let us send them love. You KNOW LOVE is the answer.

Blessings,
Myrna
P.S. Golden Age is almost here and things will be changed, bet there will be no homosex then.
Because it is all about LOVE.

Quote:

I heartfully agree with you on this matter, Hafiz. And I too hope Huelskamp wins this battle.

Quote:
Same sex marriage is against nature. We, on the basis of so called poll, have made it low or acceptable matter. But it should not be. Hope HUELSKAMP will win his battle.

Quote:

Meet the Man Trying to Ban Same-Sex Marriage in the Constitution

Matt Vasilogambros 19 hours agoPoliticsRelationships

The Supreme Court may have given a boost for same-sex marriage supporters, but that doesn't mean Rep. Tim Huelskamp is giving up.

Late last week, the Kansas Republican introduced a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. To be sure, adding an amendment to the founding document of the United States is a long shot to say the least, even if it gains some attention in the beginning stages.

Though Republican leadership have yet to back the measure, the bill has 28 cosponsors.

The bill reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

In an interview with National Journal, Huelskamp said grassroots support in the states can pressure enough lawmakers to support the measure. But in the face of the inertia of the same-sex marriage movement (same-sex marriage is now supported by a slim majority of Americans in polls, with young people strongly in favor), Huelskamp's measure will probably not gain any momentum beyond his conservative colleagues.

"Any constitutional amendment is a very difficult hill to climb, but I think my colleagues are going to be surprised of the support coming from people back home," he said.

So why push? It's all about the children, who were the victims of last week's Supreme Court decisions, he said.

Here are edited excerpts from the conversation with Huelskamp:

NJ: You've had some time to reflect on this. How do you feel about the Supreme Court rulings?

HUELSKAMP: I still remain disappointed. After looking closer at them, they could have gone much further. They didn't declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. So, it's good to see the Court was not able to garner enough votes for that.

I'm continually amazed at the tortured logic of the two different majorities on those decisions and how they came to the goal they clearly wanted to get to. They're kind of schizophrenic decisions if you put them back to back.

NJ: Well, that's where you come in with your proposal for a marriage amendment. What sort of support are you seeing from your colleagues on this amendment? Any Democratic support?

HUELSKAMP: Too early to tell. In the Republican conference, we have John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers who were here the last time we voted for a marriage amendment. They voted for it and hopefully they'll be back saying the same. Hopefully they haven't changed their positions on that given how strongly the speaker was trying to defend [the Defense of Marriage Act]. Hopefully we'll get some strong support from leadership.

NJ: You've had some experience with this. You were behind the Kansas marriage amendment ban. What sort of lessons do you take from that?

HUELSKAMP: We were watching what was happening in other states and there were plenty of folks on the Republican side in general who wanted to make sure it was a very potent political weapon with the timing of when to put it on the ballot. And I understood all that, but I said at the end it's the issue that matters. And there were Republicans who didn't want to do it, but at the end of the day they said, "OK, if you put it to votes, you're going to make us vote for it." And we got it done. But it took two sessions and one election intervening. A number of folks got beat in 2004 because they were unwilling to put it on the ballot.

When we deal with constitutional amendments, every member of Congress needs to do his due diligence. But at the end of the day, you've got to put it out to the states. States make the decision eventually.

It'll get a full hearing over here. Any constitutional amendment is a very difficult hill to climb, but I think my colleagues are going to be surprised of the support coming from people back home. As much as we follow the decisions, there are only a few thousand people looking at the SCOTUSblog and the real world is still going on. And they hear the news and said, "Really? This is where our country has gone to? And we have 37 states that have this and these five justices will overrule 7 million Californians and this is all pretty strange and pretty nondemocratic." The debate of marriage is just starting. It's not over.

NJ: One of the things you have cited is the effect on children. Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, wrote that DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples." Other studies, including from the American Sociological Association, show that children are not negatively affected by having two parents of the same sex. On what do you base your opinion that same-sex marriage is harmful for children?

HUELSKAMP: I'd like to see the one study. The study you're talking about is very limited and in my background—I do have a Ph.D. and am used to reading those kind of things—every study that I've seen is pretty conclusive. Social-science studies obviously have their limitations, but we also have centuries of human experience.

But what is a really shocking statement from the court is Kennedy proclaiming Bill Clinton and 400 members of the House and Senate back then as haters, that they have animus. There is no case for that. It's just an outrageous statement. To demonize like the Court did I think is going to upset all the folks who go to church every Sunday and a lot of folks who worry about their own families and wondering what it means.

It won't end the debate. It's just beginning. A good example is Roe v. Wade 40 years ago. The Left thought they won and 40 years later they're losing, they're losing ground. We're gaining on the life side and I think it's instructive and hopeful to those of us on my side of the debate here.

NJ: Is there anything you feel is important when discussing this issue?

HUELSKAMP: I still think the issue over children just gets lost. The idea that the desires of two consenting adults—there are court cases involving polygamy moving up through the system as well, but we'll leave it at two consenting adults—but somehow that trumps the needs of children? That's what gets lost too much. If you ask the average mom in America, "Would you like dad to be around?" Well, absolutely. And marriage has been that institution, the least intrusive institution, which make fathers into dads. And that's how we build a stronger society for our children. And that's what the studies have shown. And I think every mommy asking if you'd like a real dad around, really involved, really engaged. The best way to make that happen has always been marriage. And so that's what I think has gotten lost over the debates over two consenting adults. What about all our kids?

We have four adoptive children. That's what I see. I was happy to provide a mom and a dad for four kids, and I think it's helpful to them. And I'd like to promote that. That's been the societal ideal and that's been the goal of this legislation up here, at least the stated goal.

Hi Miguel,Myrna,Hafiz and All, I try to stay out of the debate on same sex marriages. I agree with Myrna that love is the answer and I try to like and respect everyone. Nellie

Hi Myrna,

I would have no saying on homosexual marriage were it not that it denaturalizes the very essence of family within human society as a man-woman-children essential nucleus, therefore disintegrating it with eventually human societies disappearing altogether as a result of such disintegration. In other words, such a family would no be a family in the real, profound sense of the word. Nothing can change that fact even if in some rare, isolated cases it may seem to work.

On the other hand, I know 'normal' families have in the last decades ceased for the most part to be functional as a result of diverse causes - mainly the general degradation of society negatively influencing it in almost every sense: among them, the fact that the children are for the most part no longer raised by their mothers but by nurses because their mothers have to go out to work and they, again for the most part, suffer from their absence, later developing addictions to alcohol or drugs or both, or even becoming criminals; and the more and more frequent divorces forcing the children to be raised outside of their original family nucleus - which only adds to the problem with also deplorable results, not the least of which is the increasingly frequent criminal behavior that they will later develop.

In my opinion, a generalization of marriages between same sex members will be the coup-de-grace to family itself and ultimately to human society. That is, if nothing else occurs to put an end to such an aberration, the likes of which, in diverse fashions and degrees, have in the past caused entire societies to disappear.

Please note that I am not putting the blame on gays or lesbians alone for this situation, they are more the victims than anything else in this - but on society itself that at present seems to be on a suicidal path leading to extinction.

I pray God everyday to send His son or a representative or still better, to descend Himself on this Earth to correct our ways as they are unfortunately becoming more and more deviated on these end days.

Hugs and Blessings,

Miguel


P.S. As to the DNA changed: I know for a fact that homosexuals are mostly born like that, with lesser numbers of them becoming such usually in their teens mainly as a result of wrong inter-relations and, generally speaking, of degradation of human societies. Why they are born like this can only be explained, in my opinion, by some action - read bad karma - from past lives, such as can also be the cases of innate blindness or malformations, et cetera.

Student ordered to remove cross necklace at Sonoma State University

An official at Sonoma State University ordered a student working at a freshman orientation fair to remove or hide a cross necklace on two separate occasions. The unnamed official feared that other students could be offended by the two-inch-long symbol of Christianity.

The first of the two incidents occurred at the public school in Northern California’s wine country on June 27, reports Fox News. The official, an orientation supervisor, warned Sonoma State student Audrey Jarvis that “the chancellor” enforced a policy against wearing religious items.

“The chancellor” is presumably Timothy P. White, the chancellor of the entire 23-school California State University system.

According to Hiram Sasser, an attorney representing Jarvis, the supervisor advised the practicing Catholic “that she could not wear her cross necklace because it might offend others, it might make incoming students feel unwelcome.”

Jarvis, 19, said she was floored by the explanation.

“I was offended because I believe as a Christian woman it is my prerogative to display my faith any way I like so long as it is not harming anyone else,” she told Fox News. “I was very hurt and felt as if the university’s mission statement — which includes tolerance and inclusivity to all — was violated.”

On a second occasion, the supervisor ordered Jarvis to conceal the cross under her shirt or get rid of it. That’s when the liberal arts major decided to bail early on the orientation job.

Sasser, the director of litigation at the conservative- and Christian-oriented Liberty Institute, calls the supervisor’s actions “obvious religious discrimination” and is seeking an apology.

The attorney added that the law is pretty settled in this area. “State employees may wear crosses while they are performing their duties as long as the wearing does not interfere with the employees’ duties or harm the employer’s business interests,” Sasser counseled.

Management at Sonoma State, a school known mostly as a laidback hippie haven with a nice library, is apologizing repeatedly and without reservation.

“Someone who works here was concerned that the cross might be off-putting to students who are coming to campus for the first time,” confirmed university spokeswoman Susan Kashack. She added that the supervisor’s behavior was “completely wrong.”

“It was absolutely an inappropriate action for him to make that request of her,” Kashack added, according to Fox News.

“It’s possible that political correctness got out of hand.”

Sonoma State President Ruben Arminana is in on the groveling as well.

“The president was very upset about it and asked me to contact Miss Jarvis and give a profuse apology,” Kashack said.

Kashack noted that school officials have communicated with the unidentified employee who ordered Jarvis to remove the cross necklace. However, she refused to disclose what was said or if he faces any sort of consequences.

Follow Eric on Twitter and send education-related story tips to erico@dailycaller.com.
Join the conversation on The Daily Caller

Ruling on same-sex marriage sparks fights in N.J., other states