Index of Articles

One night in late February of this year my wife, Joanne, and I were settling in after a day of fun in Santa Barbara, California.

We were watching a local cable channel covering their City Council meeting. There was a discussion going on about Proposition 22, which had been added to California's March, Super Tuesday, primary election ballot.

Apparently, several other states now recognize same sex marriages. When these couples move to California, they feel that their marriages should be recognized by the State of California, where they are presently outlawed. The recognition of marital status bequeaths hundreds of different rights and privileges. For example, visiting someone in a hospital, tax benefits, health benefits, estate and property rights, etc.

So there is a block of people who wish to deny gay and lesbian partners their rights granted by other states, hence Proposition 22 in California. Proponents of this proposition wish to allow for what they consider a parallel recognition but it's not the as same marital status.

We heard several people speak very eloquently on both sides of the issue. One obviously educated gentleman, who spoke in support of this proposition, used scripture to justify his position, quoting from the book of Genesis. Then there was a clergyman, an openly gay man, who spoke passionately about how people have used scripture to justify many things over the years, including slavery, denying woman's, gay, lesbian, and other civil rights, and now marital status for consenting adults recognized by other states.

I've been supporting the power and necessity of Jane Roberts' American Vision, from her book The God of Jane, A Psychic Manifesto, for years now. It says, in a nutshell, that no one can claim any longer to have rights to "The Way" or "Truth with a capital 'T'". The accompanying bureaucracy of people who mediate that Truth can no longer impose their interpretations of propriety upon others based upon their beliefs. In other words, The Word of God, so to speak, or holy scripture cannot be literally expressed or owned by any person or group of people. We are each FREE to interpret our divine connection in our own ways, for better or worse. Ethics and personal responsibility are a whole subset of this discussion. But these are belief systems and subject to regional, cultural interpretation and context, NOT ABSOLUTES!

This issue is a reflection of something deeper that is occurring right now and continues throughout this century. It is part of this profound shift in consciousness unfolding all around us. One implication is that no one has the right to use holy scripture, or any system of ethics to justify UNEQUAL treatment of humans beings and the planet we live on! After all, everything is sacred and alive and part of the great web of creation, isn't it?

If marriage status brings a set of rights to consenting adults, then anyone should be able to receive those benefits regardless of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation.

One Santa Barbara Councilman, a gay man, offered a beautiful response by wondering how anyone can understand his choices and preferences better than he, and then impose that on him. He was tired of the hypocrisy! He also mentioned one California proposition that came to a vote in the 1980's (which means that someone actually got enough signatures to add the proposition to the ballot) that would round up all of the gays and lesbians and put them into concentration camps!

Now to top it all off, later that evening we saw the end of the premiere of a new TV show, "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" that saw two total strangers enter into "holy matrimony"—all based on a variant of a beauty pageant format where the millionaire (a man, of course) got to watch 50 woman compete. At the end of this process, these two strangers were legally married! Full marriage rights were instantly granted to them, and love—well, excluding the love of money—had nothing to do with it. How could this relationship be "sanctified" by holy scripture and two other consenting partners not be?!

The idea of imposing one's traditions on others is hopelessly calcified and obsolete! We live in strange times, granted. There is rapid change in the air and people are holding onto notions of "this is the way we've always done it"—intolerance and discrimination against people not withstanding—it's tradition.

The sooner we jointly recognize and work WITH the changes we see all around us, the sooner we will lessen the conflict that comes with them. We all are taught to fear change. Perhaps it's time to incorporate change into a new view of the world around us?

I try to imagine myself explaining all of this to a visitor from another species, an interdimensional traveler, perhaps, and I still find myself hard-pressed to understand some of the horrors being perpetrated upon human beings by other human beings. But this is where we are as a species.

I was moved to tears watching this American, democratic process unfolding in real time on TV during the Santa Barbara City Council  meeting. What a great country we live in, one that allows for dissenting opinions to be publicly debated and voted upon in an open forum. True, it's a messy and sometimes violent process, but it is a democratic process where anyone can lobby for the changes they desire.

The imagery of the elections in Islamic Iran, that recently saw an 80%-plus voter turnout, further supports the notion of change manifesting all around the peoples of our planet. And these changes are now instantly beamed into our living room TV sets and Internet-connected computer screens. So the rate of change continues to accelerate.

The debate over Proposition 22 also reminds me of the court case—The People vs. Larry Flint—that saw our Supreme Court throw out a "holier than thou" lawsuit perpetrated by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, a "well meaning but imbecilic personality" (to paraphrase a Seth quote that didn't specifically refer to Rev. Falwell but religious fanatics like him). The Supreme Court ruled that Larry Flint had the right—according to their interpretation of "free speech" in the Constitution of the United States—to satire Jerry Falwell, even if he did it in a gross, disgusting, and public manner.

The rights of free speech and the pursuit of happiness are two of this country's greatest achievements. Thinking back to Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Constitution of the United States along with the rest of the founders, I marveled at how well their framework still holds up over 200 years later. I am proud to be an American, and realize that debating new ideas in our local, state, and national stages is as American as any tradition we have.

So where do we go from here with regard to the "pursuit of happiness"? In this rapidly changing environment of the 21st century how do we find fulfilling personal relationships with ourselves and our loved ones? How do we create and maintain good health? How do we find abundance in our financial situations? How many material goods do we need to consume to make ourselves healthy and happy while keeping a balance with other people and the environment? What is the role of spirit in all of this? Just why are we here and what's our purpose, individually and as a people?

Whatever comes next, you can bet that it will shatter some of the old ways that we've always done things. I think the Seth Material, including Jane Roberts' aspect psychology books and poetry, are great sources of insight and inspiration that foreshadow some of what we're going to see unfold in the next 75 years (which is NOW of course). There are additional sources of similar information that resonate with these ideas, working together to provide pieces of the puzzle of this emerging new world view that is still in the midst of its birth pangs.

Even though Prop 22 passed in the state I now live in—and I must say I'm disappointed and voted NO—it's only a question of time until equal rights are recognized as an extension of the original concept of "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and passed into the laws of our local, state, and federal governments here in the United States.

An exploration of the implications of these concepts for animals, plants, and other life forms that compose our Biosphere won't be far behind either! But that's another story ...