In response to:

Mr. Clinton, You Are Wrong About Overturning DOMA

KathyCanyonwalker Wrote: Mar 11, 2013 11:45 PM
oh no. A protector of the Constitution of the United States has grown in his understanding of what it means to be gay in the past 17 years. The horror. Welcome to the 1970's Mr. Brown when professional began to understand homosexuality as a normal variation of human sexuality. And OF COURSE Framers of the Constitution did not envision marriage equality. People did not begin to understand that there was a persistent same sex attraction until the 1890's. Rhetoric is NOT your gift; silly is.
OBAMA-DRAMA Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 12:05 AM
This affliction, homosexualism.. always genetic rooted rather than persuasion based... has been with mankind since the time of Adam and Eve. It is only within the 20th century that this affliction has been measured at 3% occurrence among all humanity regardless of race, class and culture (thus proving it being of genetic root).

Read my post above to learn the fate of homosexuality this century along with a host of other genetic rooted afflictions of likewise horrendous consequences.
OBAMA-DRAMA Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 12:09 AM
To rationalize marriage of homosexuals to like type (rather than to a straight female or lesbian) on the grounds of either "equality" (thus "marriage equality") or "equal treatment under law" within bounds and intent of the Constitution as worded and thus correctly interpreted is utter nonsense. Marriage is a state issue. It is not federal or Constitutional issue under any rubric or guise.
KathyCanyonwalker Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 12:11 AM
It appears you are missing out on actually knowing gay people. But you do have plenty of fear and stereotypes to keep you comfy. I can't imagine that you are a very peace-filled , joy-filled person. How sad to live like this.
OBAMA-DRAMA Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 12:19 AM
I know many gay people of both gender. Such is why I know.. from them.. that each felt sexual lust for the same gender the began at about age eight... with none reporting such as having occurred during their teen or young adulthood. Not one...

I have no hatred of homosexualism or fear those afflicted by such. Instead, unlike many homosexuals and heterosexuals.. until properly explained.. they believe (as apparently do you) that this genetic affliction is a harmless variation of 'normal'. It is anything but even when not considering the disease component.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 12:22 AM

Obama Drama is a known troll who has little knowledge on any topic. He posts the same stuff over and over just to get people riled up. If he actually understood his own post, he would see where he wrote:

"Marriage is a state issue. It is not federal or Constitutional issue under any rubric or guise. "

If he believed what he wrote it would make the point that there is NO constitutional authority for DOMA which is the exact opposite of the point Mr Brown is trying to make.
OBAMA-DRAMA Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 12:41 AM
Tinsldr2... the contents of my posts on all subjects I address or respond to by others are factual. I do not believe DOMA should have been enacted under federal law and instead such been done only via state law.

If you have any different interpretation of law and/or homosexualism... regarding occurrence and effect.. different than mine then please detail your opinion. I will be glad to debate with you or any other poster.
du2 Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 12:50 PM
O-D, you can keep calling homosexuality an affliction, but law abiding and responsible citizens are not denied the right to marry because they have one. There are no doctors, psychiatrists or social workers who agree with interfering with the self reliance of anyone, no matter what YOU think of them. Equal responsibility is supposed to be guaranteed equal rights and protections. Period. The restrictions are simple, and protective of individuals, not their gender and orientation anyway, because NEITHER indicates the character and competence of a person. And you DON'T debate at all. You just make unfounded claims and lodge uninformed opinions, which mean nothing.
KathyCanyonwalker Wrote: Mar 12, 2013 1:49 PM
thank you, he makes almost no sense.

Dear Mr. Clinton, with all respect to the office of the president which you held for 8 years, I must say that it is not just ironic that you are now asking the Supreme Court to overturn the legislation you signed into law 17 years ago. It is downright tragic.

In your March 7th editorial for the Washington Post, you wrote that although it “was only 17 years ago” when you signed the Defense of Marriage Act, “it was a very different time.”

May I ask you, sir, if 17 years have changed the nature of men and women, of...