Enough About Octomom, Already

Seriously, enough is enough. Lately one can hardly tune in to any media source without being bombarded with stories about Nadya "Octomom" Suleman. She has become Paris Hilton for the less fashionable. It isn't even so much the fact that the media are talking about her that is so maddening, but the way in which they are talking about her. What does it say about the state of this country when I can turn on the evening news on any given day and hear reports along the lines of, "Now, let's all raise our eyebrows and point, maybe even chuckle a little bit, at the freak show with the big Angelina lips and eight freakin' babies. What a whack job this one is, huh?"

The sad thing is that there ARE some very compelling stories there. This case of a single woman who already has six children, living on student loans and disability, having fertility treatments and giving birth to octuplets can trigger some interesting debates about the ethicality of subjecting one's children to the financial and emotional burdens of such a situation. It can raise some questions as to whether or not a doctor should have the right to deny a patient treatments which he feels would be detrimental. It can cause examinations into the abstruse psyche of a woman who is obsessed by the idea of having children, whose "magical thinking" leads her to believe that she will be able to control a seemingly uncontrollable situation. If we look even more deeply into the case of the Octomom, we may even enter into a discussion about why many women and couples feel the need to go to such drastic lengths as fertility treatments to have children, rather than, say, adopting.

To see something like THAT on the news would interest me. But do the media focus on these issues? Alas, and not surprisingly, no. No, the media feel the people would rather laugh at the crazy lady. And so I say, enough already.

God in America

Just over four months after California voters made inequality the law of the land by passing Prop 8 (which is currently on appeal) to ban gay marriage, President Obama reportedly will do what former President Bush had refused to do and sign a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality. Obama, who is a Christian, wants to send a message to the world that America does, in fact, support human rights and the ideas of equality and tolerance. These are fundamental ideals upon which our founding fathers built this nation. They are essential American laws. At least, they should be. However, while our current President has allowed his Christian teachings to instill in him a sense of fairness and acceptance of his fellow man, many so-called proud Americans have twisted these values in order to make America a country of discrimination.

Those founding fathers clearly meant for the United States to be a non-religious nation. We have freedom of religion, separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." He obviously thought of religion as a personal, individual choice. And yet, there are many today who would make distinctly religious values American law. A constitutional ban on gay marriage is one example of this.

It was not all that long ago that racial minorities in this country did not have the same marriage rights as white people. We look back on that now with feelings of disgust, yet we are still allowing that sort of injustice to occur. Homosexuality as something negative is purely a religious concept. There are scientific studies that suggest that homosexuality is genetic, and homosexual behavior occurs often in nature. Regardless of how one feels about gay marriage or homosexuality in general, it is unconstituional and unamerican to deny any citizen any right that another citizen enjoys. This is especially true if a citizen is being denied a right because one religion suggests it should be so. What justification is there to perpetuate prejudice and inequality in the name of God and American values?