Love explosion!

I have two good friends who, on the night they got married a few years back, placed a large custom sticker on the back of the window of their car which boldly and playfully exclaimed “Love Explosion.”  I have always thought it to be so wonderfully fitting to describe their relationship as a “love explosion” and still find myself smiling, even today, many years later, at the mere mention of it.

At this moment, I can’t think of a more appropriate phrase than a “love explosion” to describe what has happened in our country today, June 26, 2013, as the Supreme Court of the United States of America overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law passed on September 21, 1996, which allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states, effectively barring same-sex married couples from receiving federal marriage benefits. The victory means the federal government must recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples married in the 12 states that allow same-sex marriage, plus the District of Columbia, and give them the same benefits that they had been previously denied under the DOMA.

This landmark decision is cause for celebration not only among those in the gay community, but for anyone who counts themselves among those who yearn for the day when all human beings on our planet will be able to freely express and experience love, absent judgment, absent restrictions, a day when everyone will be afforded equal opportunities in every aspect of their lives. And this historic ruling today by the United States Supreme Court is a very good indicator that we are indeed headed in that direction.  Perhaps not as swiftly or speedily as many of us would truly desire, but, yes, the shift is definitely happening.

Events like this in our human experience help us to understand more clearly just how vast and limitless and immeasurable Love is.  How silly for us human beings to think for one nanosecond that we could contain Love inside any kind of container, and somehow then attempt to keep it there by sternly guarding it with our narrow rules and stiff laws.  How naive of some people on this planet to believe that we could place boundaries on that which is boundless and eternal.  How peculiar that so many people thought they could define in human terms that which has demonstrated itself time and time again to exist outside the limited parameters of our language.

Love.

Love is all there is.

There is nothing but Love.

And try as we might to control, manipulate, restrict, quell, morph, or ignore the ways in which Love is choosing to be expressed in our lives, Love will pour forth, Love will radiate from the heartbeat of the universe, and Love will explode from the purest place of peace and joy.  It will not differentiate between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman.  It will not subdue or enhance its presence based on differing skin colors or countries of origin or religious preferences.  It simply cannot.  We can imagine that it can.  We can believe that it can.  And if we do not stop the insanity of thinking we get to choose who is allowed or who is denied Love, then our experience of Love will be one that reflects those narrow choices.

Thankfully, on this day, these revolutionary words were authored by United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, reflecting the New Tomorrow that we here at “The Global Conversation” are honored and overjoyed to stand witness to and share:

“DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.”

(Lisa McCormack is the Managing Editor & Administrator of The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)

Please Note: The mission of The Global Conversation website is to generate an ongoing sharing of thoughts, ideas, and opinions at this internet location in an interchange that we hope will produce an ongoing and expanding conversation ultimately generating wider benefit for our world. For this reason, links that draw people away from this site will be removed from our Comments Section, a process which may delay publication of your post. If you wish to include in your Comment the point of view of someone other than yourself, please feel free to report those views in full (and even reprint them) here.
Click here to acknowledge and remove this note:
  • Christopher Toft

    It’s funny, until yesterday I hadn’t even heard of the so called “Defense” of marriage act. A similar process has been happening here in the UK, amid noisey controversy from the religious right(who are more of a minority here than in the US). I agree with your assessment Lisa, that laws like DOMA arise out of a misplaced need to restrict & contain love. This restriction of love mirrors my own experiences in denying my sexuality for years, largely out of a belief that homosexuality was a distortion of “real” & “natural” heterosexual love.

    • Our society has placed some curiously narrow parameters on what is “real” or “natural,” as you have so wonderfully and candidly articulated, Christopher. I often think to myself, we must know better than this, right? It just simply doesn’t make sense to me that there are a chosen few among us (of all 7 billion plus people on this planet, that is) who have got it right, and the rest of humanity has got it completely wrong. Boy, if I ever say or do in this lifetime which serves to help another brother or sister see their own light, their own divinity, their own completeness and perfection, I will have considered myself to have lived a grand and purposeful life!

      • Christopher Toft

        One word Lisa: Religion;)

  • politics

    Your post was very inspiring Lisa,

    Still unsure where Love has to fit into the equation though. I must admit that it is a very special benefit and luxury given to any with an alternative lifestyle, which until recently probably would have never been brought to our attention, kudos to the diplomatic means of perseverance.

    I will admit that I am a little reluctant to admit that this was a banner day for Freedom. Was there any consideration given to the actual gift of Life, that only two opposing sexes can actually conceive in the creation of? (Granted there are labs that may disagree, but this is another topic for another time).

    Would this not be considered selfish?

    Anytime an opposing force wins with a same mindset they are trying to avoid, is in my definition, a step backwards. Why is it that when Freedom of Love comes to the plate, Nature always loses? Where does respect fit into the arena? Any involved were themselves conceived, right?

    There could have been some concessions made to counter the implications of this particular ruling that would have benefited both sides of the issue. To me it is Democracy that allows for an even playing field, which both sides having the mindset of understanding the other teams concern. Do not bring Love into an area where there is no room for it.

    Pretty sure Life was not mean’t to be taken for granted.

    With Love of Life intact,

    Another one of God’s creation

    • You raise an interesting point, Politics: “Was there any consideration given to the actual gift of Life, that only two opposing sexes can actually conceive in the creation of?”

      Your question stirred up some questions for me:

      Do you think it is likely, or possible, that the way in which the universe expresses itself through life could and will be inhibited, or perhaps even one day be eliminated, because we as a society allow a segment of our population to enter into relationships whose intended purpose is one other than biological reproduction?

      Do the same rules apply to heterosexual couples who choose not to biologically “gift life” to the world?

      And if the rules are different, how do we decide who gets to make the rules up in situations where the consequences largely affect someone other than themselves?

      And finally, if love does not fit into this equation, if it is even possible to remove this concept of “love,” what then is left? Is there some other foundation upon which we are functioning from on a spiritual level? On a human level? Is it truly possible to insert and remove love as we see fit, not for ourselves, but for others?

      Thank you for your excellent points. I look forward to hearing your continued thoughts, Politics.

      • politics

        Answer to question 1. No, actually I believe it keeps growth in check with necessary safeguards.

        Answer to question 2. Rules apply to everyone, no ifs, and’s or buts.

        Answer to question 3. Rules can be negotiated with all in mind. Granted there are certain cases where it is impossible to make everyone happy, again terminology could have prevented a lot of the discourse in the issue at hand.

        That is just it, Love was never considered because it never existed in the first place, if so then what is all the fuss about? Pretty sure this last part covers your 4 part question.

    • Christopher Toft

      Hi Politics, Please could you explain what reproduction has to do with this issue? Would what be considered selfish? If you are suggesting that nature “wants” us to reproduce out of “respect” for it, I’d have to strongly disagree. Sex did not evolve “for” reproduction, it evolved as a means of reproduction. Indeed, mindless robotic reproduction out of deference to nature could easily be the death of us all. If two people sharing tenderness, compassion & joy is not love, what is it?

      • politics

        Reproduction has everything to do with everything, doesn’t it?

        Selfish is self evident if you take what I said in context.

        I never mentioned sex did I ?

        I agree with your assessment about Love, but that is not what the issue is, now is it? If it was then there would be no need to argue about how to express it.

        • Christopher Toft

          Hello again Politics, I am having difficulty here in understanding exactly what it is you are trying to say. Please explain to me what it is that is selfish as it is not self evident to me & I am simply not understanding this. Why is reproduction so important? Presumably you have heard of unsustainable growth? Does unrestricted birth sound life serving, might it not lead to death on a massive scale? If so, how could reproduction be seen as absolutely life serving? If you are not talking about reproduction, exactly what is the issue with how love is expressed? Finally, if love is love, why argue about how it is expressed? Arguing about how love is expressed, to me implies that some forms of love are more loving than others. Isn’t a rose by any other name still a rose?

          • politics

            Christopher,

            In order to understand what was implied about selfishness, just think about it, then try and figure out how and why the whole issue just became about a one-sided expression of beliefs.

            Is this not very similar to the very essence that is trying to be avoided, again?

            Any one sided thought paradigms similar to the ones that started any transgression to begin with only leads to the same conclusion of selfishness. This is truth. Like it or not.

            Reproduction is in fact the very essence of Life, how else could Life continue? Not just Human reproduction that you took it upon yourself to transcribe in a way you wanted to hear it. Which became derogatory based upon someone else’s conclusion.

            Maybe you are not asking the right questions?

            I would also like to state that you are actually putting meaning where it does not fit or ever mentioned in my posting.

            I apologize for any misunderstanding on your part, resulting from my thoughts about the whole subject.

            With a very sincere expression from one person to another,

            Think outside the box once in awhile. I mean no disrespect or am I advocating any arguments, nor am I against any expression of Love.

            My concern is how it can be misinterpreted to fit the needs of those that are not capable of acknowledging it’s true meaning. Better yet, redefining it to meet specifications in a lopsided way.

          • Christopher Toft

            Hi politics, It seems to me that much of what you have written leaves me in a position of feeling very frustrated. I do not feel that you are making yourself clear & that you are leaving me to second guess what it is that you are trying to say. Please use clearer language. So to put it simply, are you saying that the anti same sex marriage supporters needs were not taken into consideration? What do you believe could have been done to address this? This is an issue I have given considerable thought to & I have concluded that there is simply no win/win situation here. Either same sex marriage is illegal, which sends the message that some forms of love are more holy & sacred than others, or it is legal & therefore it upsets the religious right because it undermines their beliefs about marriage. You can’t please everyone. What you can do is make laws that point in the direction of what is so. I believe that same sex marriage is grounded in reality. As you said truth is truth whether we like it or not.

          • politics

            Thank you for your candor Christopher and I do appreciate this opportunity.

            A balanced approach would have been achieved if both sides had agreed upon what the other wants. For example, allow D.O.M.A to be respected for the soul purpose of procreation which is how we all got here, isn’t it? Is this not respecting the Nature of Life at it’s moment of definition?
            With due cause to announce we are not in fact better adapted at Achieving Nature than Nature herself?

            With all respect for the Marriage issue, would it have been so demeaning to just accept say, a Civil Union with benefit rights?

            As for the true meaning of Marriage,…. LIFE.

            Apology is a sign of respect and for the other topics you brought into the discussion, they seem to me to be some other unrelated dialogue. Though I would be interested in following up on it. Once we have closure.

          • Christopher Toft

            Thank you for discussing this with me politics. As i said before, i do not believe there is a win/win scenario here. If same sex marriage is legalized the religious right will feel their beliefs about marriage, god & life will be undermined. (Personally i believe these people to be mistaken about the nature of marriage, life & god & given that their suffering over this issues is rooted in these misunderstandings, such a legalization of same sex marriage would not be an act of deliberate harm or attack, rather it would be a result of the choice of these people to hold onto outdated & mistaken ideas). The alternative that you propose(respect DOMA) to my ear sounds like someone in the 1960’s calling for the southern segregation laws to be “respected”. It asks humanity to accept a law which implicitly states that love can only be expressed by certain people in certain ways & that there is a hierarchy of love, some forms of love are more holy & sacred than others. In all honesty, how would it feel to you to have the government say to you “Sorry mister, your honest & heartfelt love for another is worth less than other people’s love because what you do together, well that’s not love is it?” Regarding your comment about civil partnerships, yes i used to think “so what’s the fuss about marriage?” too until it became personal & i had to really think about it. Civil partnerships are all very well in a secular & legalistic sense, but to have marriage for heterosexuals & “civil partnerships” for gays & lesbians is a form of segregation which directly implies as i said, a hierarchy of love-“only some forms of love are sacred enough for marriage” When gays are denied the right to marriage their relationships are denied simple dignity. I agree with you about your definition of marriage, although i find your definition of life rather narrow. If you think about it, all relationships exist to “co-create life”, as
            that is the reason for everything. I am sure you are aware also that
            many gay couples adopt & support children, it is no longer an
            exclusively heterosexual thing. I do not see marriage as an act that
            simply legalizes sex, i see marriage as a sacred agreement to love &
            support a partner & any potential offspring. For me marriage is
            about sharing joy compassion and growth experiences. What could be more
            holy than this & shouldn’t all couples be legally allowed to make
            such a commitment? Just my thoughts.

          • Christopher Toft

            Politics, do you not wish to discuss this with me any more?

          • politics

            I would have, but then I realized the issue became about you and your issues with religion.

            Sincerely yours with my respect for you intact.

          • Christopher Toft

            Thank you for taking our discussion as far as you wished to go. Our respect is mutual.

    • Therese

      Politics,

      I understand, on some level, the point you are making. But, for me, even a practical look at the reproduction issue shows many flaws.

      First of all, in allowing same sex couples to marry, no one has taken away any heterosexual persons ability to copulate and reproduce. Same sex marriage is not a mandate (as DOMA was) to love in any particular way, nor to have sex in any particular way.

      Secondly, as you pointed out, the biological imperative to propagate the species simply does not exist any longer, in a strictly practical sense, since we do not require actual copulation at all to reproduce.

      Third, many think that much of the discussion about marriage and repopulation is religion’s way of controlling the population through fear and economics. I wish I could say that more people means more money for the church, but, in fact, it does not. It means more people in poverty, more people with no education, and more people able to be controlled. How? Suffering is God’s will…so low wages, harsh conditions, baby after baby because to control birth is wrong…so you hang on to the thing that tells you what’s happening has some meaning at the very least. Who needs this controlled population? Think about it. Going just a little bit further, Politics, who benefits most from saying marriage/sex/reproduction are sacredly attached? Men. I don’t know if you have heard this before, but women don’t have to feel a thing, sexually, to reproduce, yet, in many religions, it is a woman’s duty to be available to her husband. If you were a woman, would you feel Love was necessarily the guiding force for reproduction? (There is a very long discussion to be had in this last area, but I think you can tell the general gist of where I am going.)

      Change marriage and procreation into acts of love, that can, each, separately, be acts of love, and you begin a different paradigm. One where you think for yourself about the very fundamental thing in life, and what it means to you…Love. Not what it means to any other person or institution, but to you…now you have, as an institution, lost control of that person.

      So, no, I don’t think that the discussion of reproduction has any place in this decision, especially when same sex couples are picking up the pieces of women judged to be wrong for having a child outside of marriage, and adopting those same children.

      • politics

        Hello Therese,

        So are you advocating the demise of Nature, are you saying that we are actually better at it than Nature herself? We actually had a chance to preserve it, with respect for it.

        I also never mentioned religion, did I?

        Change marriage and procreation into acts of Love, so you are mandating what Love is then? Kind of like what has ailed this issue before, but yet we continue with the same intent behind it and believe it is Love. Again a step backwards.

        This is were Democracy is losing it’s meaning when it comes to conclusions. If there is no respect given to where we all come from, then in fact why even bother trying to change anything at all. The whole issue surrounding Same -Sex marriage has nothing to do with Love, it started with someone who got upset about not receiving benefits from their partner, sorry to say, Love took a back seat in this drive around the block.

        It was not I that took reproduction as the contributing factor in my post, but here again the issue was brought into it, why? All that I said in my post is, was there given any consideration and respect for it from those that are searching for acceptance? Considering that is how we all got here, and I will say, is the only way it will ever be. Science is not Natural, do you really think for a minute that we have the capability of playing God, when we do not even know what Life really is.

        Do you?

        Isn’t it obvious that we are already playing with a forset fire as it is.

        Reproduction has a lot more to do with things than copulation.

        Oh yea, I am pretty sure that I never said I was against same-sex relationships, now did I? If you read some of my other posts, maybe you would have been able to hear where I was coming from. In actuality I do advocate the ability to do so, only because Life is asking for it, with a lot of good reasons intact to alleviate some of our most precious resources.

        With respect to your thoughts

        • Politics…I think you make some great points. I really do. I appreciate the considerations you bring to the discussion and agree that if we are only will to see an issue from one perspective, without honoring another, we will continue to experience conflict and separation.

          I think where we get into murky waters is when we use a word like “love” without having at least a common understanding of what each other’s definition of “love” is. “Love,” in the way I imagine many people understand “love,” is not at play in many marriages, whether they are heterosexual or gay. There are people who marry for money. There are people who marry someone who has been pre-selected for them by their family. There are people who marry to, as you said, receive governmental benefits. There are gay couples who cannot biologically procreate. There are heterosexual couples who use birth control to prevent procreation. There are couples who have 25 kids. There are some couples who desperately want children and biologically cannot.

          I don’t think Life cares; I think we care. I think Life (which I equate to love, which I equate to God – just so you understand my definition of “love”) will continue to express itself as it sees fit through and in between the innerworkings of our choices and actions, as we are only a very small representation of the universe. Are we playing God? Well, the answer to that question is going to depend entirely upon who we believe we are in relation to God.

          Thank you for being here, Politics, and sharing your thoughts.

          • politics

            Lisa,

            I really enjoy your passion, I really do. Though I thought we were representatives of God, Life and the Universe, whether our part is small or not? Is this not Life caring?

            Essentially speaking, Life, God and Universal Love does cares, it would make no sense for it not to. Meaning does require definition in order to proceed to another level, granted we understand that first.
            All individuals in the experience of Life must have “conscious” participation when it becomes aware of any truth, be it misguidance or not, wouldn’t you agree?

            We are the meaning.

            We are not playing a game anymore, this is real. Love demands our attention. Entirely.

            Thanks for having me here

        • Therese

          “So are you advocating the demise of Nature, are you saying that we are actually better at it than Nature herself? We actually had a chance to preserve it, with respect for it.”

          I have been out of contact since my post, and to comment on all of your response would be argumentative, and that isn’t what I intended to get into when I responded. I do wish to respond to the statement you began your reply with in quite a simple way:

          In the capitalizing of “Nature”, I assume you are referring to the Divine connection…and I believe it is all Divine, and all Nature. Do I think that using science to create a child is “wrong”? No. Do I believe that using science to create a child as a means of fulfilling an agenda, such as the “super race”, is “wrong”? In human terms, sure, but only because I don’t believe it is serving the highest agenda of Divinity, which is Oneness, and not superiority etc.

          The dialogs happening all over the globe these days will determine if we begin to recognize this Oneness sooner rather than later, but I don’t believe that it means that Oneness doesn’t already exist. We just don’t know how to recognize it.

          Thanks for the discussion, Politics. An opinion I either don’t fully understand, or full out disagree with is better to me than apathy any day.

          T.

          • politics

            Thanks for replying back T,

            I never mean’t for the term apathy to be considered when I was answering your questions. Perhaps we both just got lost in our own translation, which is always the problem and usually the issue.

            Perhaps we have just encountered the Nature to our problems.

  • Terri Lynn

    Reading all the comments below seems like all has been said. I just feel happy knowing that this is one big step in the right direction. Hopefully, more states will get on board.

    • I join you, Terri, in that feeling of happiness as we witness and become part of such an exciting shift in the way we view and understand our relationships with each other. At the end of the day, we all desire the same things. We just seem to have very different ideas of HOW to get there…and WHO is allowed to get there.