The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is a cause for celebration around the world, as it strikes a tone that legally legitimizes love between all people regardless of gender, and sets a standard that other nations are now going to be hard-pressed to ignore.

The day will come when it will seem, in retrospect, amazing that it took so long for such a thing to happen in our world — yet this is not a time for criticizing the past, but for celebrating the present.

From this day forward, all Federal Government benefits available to opposite-gender married couple in the U.S. will now be offered to same-sex marrieds as well. President Barack Obama lost no time in ordering his country’s Dept. of Defense and other branches of his government to rewrite regulations to immediately reflect the court’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s additional action in striking down as “unconstitutional” a ballot initiative passed by California voters prohibiting same sex marriage also blazed across the dark sky of intolerance as a comet of hope to all those who believe that the expression of true love between any individuals, announced and demonstrated through the entering into a commitment of lifelong partnership, should never be prohibited, but encouraged in a global society ravaged by a sociology of increasing separation.

With the astonishing increase in the divorce rate among heterosexual couples over the past 20 years, the ironic joke among gays has been that all they want to do is to get into what straights want to get out of.

The High Court’s decision did nothing to change the fact that gay marriage is still illegal in 34 U.S. states, but it makes it very clear that the gender composition of a marriage should have nothing to do with the flow of important Federal benefits to spouses — and, as noted above, it sends a huge message to all states, and to people throughout the world who are watching and listening, that legal prohibitions against gay couples are simply not appropriate.

Conversations with God, of course, made it clear in its messages nearly 20 years ago that “there is no manner in which the expression of a love which is pure and true is inappropriate,” directly addressing the loud announcements that had been made by some religious leaders over the years that homosexual expressions of love are against the Will of God and will be punished by everlasting damnation.

(Such denunciations came from the same kinds of people who swore with equal vehemence not very many years earlier that inter-racial marriage also violated the Will of God…and that left-handedness was a sign of the Devil.)

The human community is at long last evolving out of its primitive notions of an intolerant, judgmental, condemning and violently punishing Deity. What is perhaps most notable about the U.S. Supreme Court’s two decisions regarding gays is that they came from a largely conservative panel of judges. This makes it difficult and more than a little inconvenient for hard-core conservative Republican politicians in America to find cover for their previously highly visible and loudly intolerant views regarding gay marriage and equal rights for gays.

For those who believe in, and still see, America as the “land of the free,” it seems that it is about time this major social adjustment was made. Love is, after all, the basis of all healing and the foundation of all caring societies. It seems remarkable that anyone could have ever argued against it. Especially those who claimed to be articulating the Will of God.

For all those who love Love, this is a happy day.


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:
  • Mike Brown

    Nice that Edith Windsor may get back over $300,000 in estate taxes after Supreme court
    weighs the constitutionality of the marriage act plus interest the
    rapacious government took from her when her spouse died in 2009. They had spent 40
    years together and had come up to Toronto for a Canadian marriage in 2007. Its a start.

    Nothing should stop Anyone from going within and finding their source let alone be
    condemned by god or man because they loved the wrong sex.

    “What I’m feeling is elated,” Windsor said. “Did I ever think it could come to be, altogether? … Not a chance in hell.”

    No but there is sure a chance in heaven.

  • politics

    Are we sure that Love is the real issue?

    • Christopher Toft

      What do you consider to be the real issue Politics?

      • politics


        • Christopher Toft

          Oh i see;) In which case I’d have to say in my opinion, no we are not.

  • Michael L

    Neale, More informed information.

    “The Supreme Court’s additional action in striking down as
    “unconstitutional” a ballot initiative passed by California voters
    prohibiting same sex marriage also blazed across the dark sky of
    intolerance as a comet of hope to all those who believe that the
    expression of true love between any individuals, announced and
    demonstrated through the entering into a commitment of lifelong
    partnership, should never be prohibited, but encouraged in a global society ravaged by a sociology of increasing separation.

    The supreme court did not strike down as unconstitutional the will of the California people in making a law that says one man and one woman constitute a marriage for that state.

    They said they had no standing to do anything. and kicked it back to the judges in Californian. As this has always been a states rights issue.

    I just think accuracy is as important a concept as… the ends justify the means.

    Love can not be bound by rules and restriction from what ever side your on.

    We as the human race will unbound our selves from government shackles that makes all marriage required to be government approved.

  • Christopher Toft

    California voters?? Now that’s irony!!! The sad fact is, there may be something in the idea that same sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriages. I think that many people marry with the deep down belief that they are doing so because it is what god wants. As same sex marriage subverts the traditional ideas about what god wants, many conservatives may feel that “real” marriage would be rendered “meaningless”(not about what god wants).

  • mewabe

    It always amazes me that so many people are threatened by freedom…not only do they impose strict rules and restrictions on their own lives, but they feel threatened by all who do not.

    I see this topic, as many other social topics, as being more a matter of freedom than a matter of rights. We are all born free, as freedom is a natural and an innate soul condition. Rights are what is left after society has taken much of our freedom away.

    Rights are the crumbs our masters allow us to feast on after they have taken our cake, our original freedom. And the people are elated when unbearable restrictions are lifted, so they can have a few more precious crumbs.

    But such is a life of slavery. No one needs to celebrate or be grateful for the granting of rights that all of humanity had all along, in principle, as all of humanity was created free and born free.

    We all need to reject a life of slavery. We need to no longer live under anything…not a government, not a religion, nothing but our own conscience and in communion with a divine reality that is everywhere and in everything. We need to no longer look “up” to our masters but ignore them, as they have no place in a spiritual world where each individual is free and responsible.

    About people wanting to get out of marriage: the nuclear family is appropriately called nuclear because it does explode sooner or later, as it is not natural…for thousands of years, the traditional family was the extended family…grandparents or aunts taking care of the children when too much pressure was exerted on the parents (which can be often as the pressure of daily survival can be intense, even and perhaps more so today).

    Among tribes, children had several “mothers”, and called elder men “father”. The idea was to give the children more then one source of support, more than one role model and opportunity for bounding. Such a practice produced emotionally healthy, non-neurotic children and happy parents, a far cry from the insanity of our contemporary neurotic cultures.

    • Christopher Toft

      Well said!

      • Erin

        Ditto! I recall many a history class made amusing by researching out-dated area laws that were still enforceable…like “One cannot slurp their soup on Main Street”. Perhaps Mr. Dyrydek should spotlight such ‘Ridiculousness’?

  • Erin

    A HUGE congregation of humans…Constantly gathered in fabulous numbers…Seriously focused, sentient beings rallying Everywhere, USA…Power-packed energies united in force…And this is what they put their focus upon???

    What a grand step for them, and a little tip-toe for Humanity. What a happy day, indeed.(?)

    I stand my ground…Governance has no business in personal relationships…People have no business bringing their personal relationships to their governance!
    However, it seems to me that this is all about assets produced by some relationships, which then makes that relationship a business, and should be dealt with as a ‘partnership’…Legalities are already in place regarding many forms of partnerships.

    Sooo…Imagine all that effort…All that magnificent energy & focus…having been directed with grander vision. I See sooo much more than a law becoming of such.
    Would not Love have rather produced a freedom…an Amazingly encompassing freedom???
    Just a thought. <3

    • Mike Brown

      Families of gay couples have come in and prevented their spouses from having visiting privileges in hospitals of even terminally ill.
      Left up to hospitals individual rules…

      Taken control of the body and not allowed the gay ” spouse” to attend the funeral

      or service.

      I saw a heartbreaking one on you tube of someone grieving his spouse and

      what the family did to him.

      “I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can
      agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the
      person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of
      Hillary Clinton

      • Erin

        So this is the ‘law of the married’? That they are given ‘rights’ to other’s bodies…and their stuff? ‘Partnership’ agreements are legal, binding, customizable contracts. One can buy life insurance on anyone else, one can distribute their wealth to anyone via wills…these are non-discriminatory pacts. I do not understand why these avenues have not been used.

        I cannot help but feel that in defining one’s Self by who they enjoy intimacies with promotes separateness, once again, rather than cohesion. Laws of the Land have no business being other than for All…neutral essence of All…else they should not be.

        For This…for governance to uphold their structure as This…to honestly be separated of Church devices…to bring higher redefines of what “well-being of child” means…would have been grander directives of such Amazing effort & energy, No? So many laws…so many loopholes to twist them about. I just see no true freedom of them, but perhaps, this is just me.

        It makes little sense to maintain support & disregard of the still existing separation & discrimination of Native Americans…which I Am sure same-gendered partnerships exist within…yet, masses rally for “Poor Me” and/or “Poor Us” contrivances, leaving this issue on ‘reserve’.(?) A much more eye-opening & humanity shifting ‘issue’ for such concentrated focus to be placed. (mpo, of course)

        If folks have found a happy in this recent event…lovely. It did not effect the ‘gay’ people in my circles much, as they explored & retained their own agreements that made their personal lives credible & secure…some of these partnerships include children, btw, & ‘legal guardianships’ were put in place without much ado.

        I suppose these folks will be glad to step out of their lime lights & breathe easier of their ‘imposed’ freeness to be…Blessings to them. I’m sure many lawyers are doing over-time ‘specializing’ in the cases about to consume the dockets of courtrooms. Blessed be to All.

        • Mike Brown

          Life would just be easier and so much better if we just all COA covered our asses and not expected rights from the government

          • Erin

            COA? 🙂

  • Awareness

    Personally I feel that marriage is unnecessary. I feel entities should be free and not “bonded” to any institution or anyone. Marriage is an institution just like governments are. However, entities are free to choose to be part of any institution 🙂

    I agree with what “Conversations with God” says:

    “In HIGHLY EVOLVED societies there is neither “marriage” nor “business”—nor, for that matter, any of the artificial social constructions you have cre­ated to hold your society together.”

    “The institution you call marriage is your attempt to create security, as is the institution called government. Actually, they are both forms of the same thing—ARTIFICIAL social constructions designed to govern each other’s behavior.”

    “The in­stitution of marriage has been your attempt at creating eternality. With it, you agreed to become partners for life. But this did little to produce a love which was “un­limited” and “free.””

    “Masters cannot truthfully make the statement that your present construction of marriage seeks to make: that one person is more special to them than another. This is not a statement that a master makes, and it is NOT a statement that God makes.

    The fact is that your marriage vows, AS YOU PRESENTLY CONSTRUCT THEM, have you making a very un-Godly state­ment. It is the height of irony that you feel this is the ho­liest of holy promises, for it is a promise that God would NEVER make.”

    “For any thought that God loves one more than another is false—and any ritual which asks you to make the same statement is not a sacrament, but a sacrilege.”

    “Yet I tell you this: My love is unlimited and uncondi­tional.

    That is the one thing you cannot hear, the one truth you cannot abide, the one statement you cannot ac­cept, for its all-inclusiveness destroys not only the insti­tution of marriage (AS YOU HAVE CONSTRUCTED IT), but every one of your religions and governmental institu­tions as well.”

    “Now you say you want marriage to take you to the land of eternal bliss, or at least to some reasonable level of peace, security, and happiness. As with religion, your INVENTION called marriage does well with this in the early going, when you are first experiencing it. Yet, as with re­ligion, the longer you reside in the experience, the more it takes you where you say you don’t want to go.

    Nearly half of the people who become married dis­solve their marriage through divorce, and of those who stay married, many are desperately unhappy.Your “unions of bliss” lead you to bitterness, anger, and regret. Some—and not a small number—take you to a place of outright tragedy.

    You say you want your governments to ensure peace, freedom, and domestic tranquillity, and I ob­serve that, as you have devised them, they do none of this. Rather, your governments lead you to war, increas­ing lack of freedom, and domestic violence and up­heaval.” 🙂


    • Erin

      Awesome points of pondering, indeed! 🙂

  • nicole

    I really, honestly don’t understand this issue.

    If the purpose of legal marriage is sex, then yes, gays should, by all means, have the same rights.

    But what if the purpose of marriage, originally, was not to just legalize sex?

    What if the purpose of marriage was to co-create life out of love and for the legal right of the new born to be supported and nourished in this life by parents?

    I see marriage more like a protection act over the life of a new born, as it should be, if parents understood responsibility…

    But when we see marriage just as an act that legalizes sex… don’t we take out the responsibility part over co-creation and its result: a new life?

    • Christopher Toft

      Hello Nicole, I would like to ask you who it is that defines what the purpose of marriage is? 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.

      • nicole

        I guess I’m just more of an orthodox kind, I just think about one simple thing: was God a narrow-minded Old One that didn’t want to allow 2 of Eves or 2 of Adams to be able to procreate? What was the big deal after all… since we actually, as humans can even influence our reality, levitate, live with no food and water, and so on…

        It’s just funny thought, don’t get mad… I’m trying to comprehend things coming from the mind-set that there is a reason for everything, including the fact that it naturally takes a man and a woman to procreate.

        There is a russian writer (again, orthodox- square headed one :p), that says that there are statistically more gay people in a nation where it prevails the kind of family where the woman (wife) “rules” the house (obviously in a way that minimizes the husband’s role). He says there is an imbalance in the energy-flow between the two, that can generate a deviation in their offspring.

        Anyways, human rights are important but we have to analyze in depth all of its aspects and effects.

        • Christopher Toft

          Nicole I am not at all mad, I am happy that you are wishing to discuss this with me. I do appreciate it. As I see it life co-created sex as a means of reproduction. In humans, I think that sex is not simply about reproduction & sexual relationships are not simply about reproduction. Reproduction & children may be involved but I don’t personally see this as a requirement for the expression of love, joy, sharing & mutual compassion, which to me is the true purpose of all relationships, sexual or otherwise.
          It’s funny, I did grow up in a family environment where my mother ruled the roost & my dad was away working a lot. It is possible that I am suffering from an “imbalance” of energy flow. This & ideas like it sometimes haunt me. I am 39 now & I have spent many years in therapy, moving forward in my growth as a person. A year ago I had a sudden epiphany & I realized I was sexually attracted to men. For a time I thought I was bisexual, but then as time went on & I examined my relationships with women, it became clear that I was having these relationships from a place of fear, because I felt I should, that it was natural & that this is what nature or god wanted from me. Some of my resistance came from a strong need to believe that only heterosexuality was real & natural sexuality & that homosexuality in any form could only be a distortion of this natural & real heterosexual state. I tortured myself with this idea for several months. In the end I simply had to say “stop-this is rooted in fear & i’ll just go round & round driving myself insane expecting my gay feelings to come from fear when you self evidently do not.” I have not so far had any indication of any fear at all in my expressing of my homosexual feelings. If it is there, it is undetectable to me, all I feel is love, freedom & happiness. Regarding same sex marriage

          • nicole

            Is your father still alive? I can only advice, from my own experience, that you heal your relationship with him, give him more attention, more importance in your life, ask him advice of any kind, spend time, allow him to receive more energy thru that.

            It’s funny, same writer says a man’s survival depends upon how much he is allowed to offer and for a woman, to take :))) as she will return it thru expressing her feelings of love, nurturing the family (cooking, spending time with kids, so on).

            From my experience: I used to be the man-kind-of woman, same my mother used to be the rooster in the family. I honestly asked myself many times if there is something wrong with me 🙂
            When I married, different nationality, culture, somebody asked me why this guy? I answered: because he is more man than I am! Was true, but I overcame that as well, within 3 years, I managed to put him down.

            I had to divorce and be a single mom to find my feminity. And as God, in his Mighty wisdom always brings about our way the right thing, I had, for the last year to stay home with my parents (and my daughter), jobless, feel a bit frustrated and dis-impowered, to get to spend quality time with my dad (who happened to feel quite low as he had his foot amputated the year before I came home); we did together accessories out of beads, to sell, we cleaned up his entire life-saving of all kind of stuff, by recycling huuuuge amounts of metals (lots of cleaning work in the garage and his workshop), we renovated a house inside-out, that my parents were renting (he was involved in all decisions and opinions, checking on workers). We didn’t get to spend time together like that since I was a child (9-10 y) when he used to teach me how to drive a car.

            I don’t know why we did all these things together during about 8 months… but those were his last months as he died in jan this year. I am soooo grateful for spending this time with him; although we had arguments, although sometimes i took my personal frustration out at him, I know he felt really good doing all this work together; and i felt like a child-father relationship again (somewhere in my teenage years, this kind of relationship with my father had disappeared).

            Maybe our souls were saying good-bye, but it was definitely a healing process.
            Probably, in the russian logic, as a man, healing your relationship with your father will bring back the rooster inside of you and as a woman, healing your relationship with your dad will take the bloody roster out of you 🙂
            At least mine is gone… well, most of the time now (or at least i am aware now when my rooster-monster tries to come back).

          • Christopher Toft

            My Dad is still alive, although he is 71 now & experiencing major difficulties with his body. He is currently in hospital & I am going to visit him later. I grew up feeling afraid of my father who had an irrational temper & used to drink a lot. My relationship with my dad has improved dramatically in the last few years & I feel closer to him now than I ever did as a child. I told my dad that I am gay a few weeks back & I think he is privately uncomfortable with it. (Strange thing is, I think he is a lot more comfortable with it than my mum is. Counter-intuitive that!) There is still a distance between us, an awkwardness about showing affection(unmanly & all that rubbish). I feel that a lot of the distance between us is the unconscious choice of my dad & I cannot really force him into a deeper intimacy, as that would not be loving & would therefore be self defeating. The idea that the love & affection that I show my boyfriend has anything to do with displaced feeling for my dad is a revolting idea that does not sit right with me at all. My love for my boyfriend just does not feel connected to my father in any way.
            As for your thoughts about roosters, men & women, I would have to echo Mewabe’s post on this. For me masculinity & femininity has nothing to do with roles or dominance-submission relationships. I am very unclear as to what exactly masculinity & femininity are. People talk about them all the time, as if there is a clear & obvious distinction. As if men were “strong” & women were “kind” & never shall the two meet. My experience has taught me that you cannot be kind without being strong at the same time.(interestingly, as I move deeper into living a life from awareness & compassion, I find that I feel more masculine than I have ever felt in my life. I feel very confident & self assured) If masculine & feminine are not simple divisions into “you be that & i’ll be this” what are they? What are your thoughts Nicole?

          • mewabe

            I agree with you Christopher…

            I think that femininity or masculinity (the true kinds) do not exist in a vacuum, but only in the relative terms of relationships. In other words we are human beings first, all of us, and extremely similar (we feel, we have emotions, we have a certain amount of sensitivity, we need to share our lives, to have intimacy with another, etc).

            And the very things that get in the way of the fulfillment of our humanity are gender roles, gender images (obvious example: real men don’t cry, so forget about expressing the full range of your emotions if you are a man, and feminine women don’t get angry, so forget about being true to all of your emotions if you are a woman).

            So we are all stuck in these idiotic, self-limiting images, courtesy of society.

            The way I see it, the more a woman or a man is in touch with her or his soul, and expresses it, the more feminine or masculine s/he will be, spontaneously and authentically, because the more human s/he will be. Then masculinity or femininity expresses itself in relation with the complementary femininity or masculinity of another, naturally and spontaneously, without even trying.

            All the hang-ups about gender images and roles should clearly tell us that we are on the wrong track, that we are not expressing our true natures.

          • Christopher Toft

            Hi Mewabe, Thanks for the input. There is a lot that we agree on. It makes me curious as to what we would disagree about;)

          • mewabe

            Thanks Christopher…I think all who are in touch with their humanity and their soul see eye to eye…I rejected society’s conditioning at the youngest possible age, but I had an advantage, my parents were unconventional, non conformists (artists).

        • mewabe

          Nicole, just out of curiosity, you may want to check the book “The Nature of the Psyche”, by Jane Roberts. It clearly explains that the human psyche is neither male nor female, or is both, equally.

          It explains that gender roles (the female taking care of the offsprings, the male going out to hunt mammoths) are cultural choices that were not actually determined by the nature of our psyches, but by practical reasons when survival depended on heavy and dangerous physical activities.

          When people get stuck associating cultural choices with human nature, they end up believing man should be the king of the castle and women should obey, and that a woman who stands for herself and her right to participate in the decision making process oversteps her bounds.

          We end up with the medieval model of the patriarchy.

          Some women feel very comfortable with this model…which always surprises me.

    • Awareness

      “Conversations with God” says:

      “Human beings are biologically capable of creating children while they are children themselves—which, it may surprise most of you to know, they are for 40 or 50 years.”

      “If child-bearers were meant to be child-raisers, child bearing would not have been made possible until you were fifty!

      Child bearing was meant to be an activity of the young, whose bodies are well developed and strong.

      Child raising was meant to be an activity of the elders, whose minds are well developed and strong.”

      “Just think about this for a minute. Is anyone really emotionally ready to raise chil­dren at the time they’re physically ready to have them?”

      “The truth is, most humans are not equipped to raise children even in their 30s and 40s—and shouldn’t be expected to be. They really haven’t lived enough as adults to pass deep wisdom to their children.”

      “Rather than allow younger humans to enjoy sex, and if it produces children, have the elders raise them, you tell young humans not to engage in sex until they are ready to take on the responsibility of raising children. You have made it “wrong” for them to have sexual experiences before that time, and thus have created a taboo around what was intended to be one of life’s most joyful celebrations.

      Of course, this is a taboo to which offspring will pay little attention—and for good reason: it is entirely un­natural to obey it.

      Human beings desire to couple and copulate as soon as they feel the inner signal which says they are ready. THIS IS HUMAN NATURE.”

      “Place the raising of children in the hands of your re­spected Old Ones. Parents see the children whenever they wish, live with them if they choose, but are not solely responsible for their care and upbringing. The physical, social, and spiritual needs of the children are met by the entire community, with education and val­ues offered by the elders.”

      “It is the elders who should raise the offspring—and who were intended to.” 🙂

      Blessings to ALL 🙂