My breakfast was interrupted this morning by a report from Washington that Peter Orszag, the Budget Director for President Obama, had fathered a baby child out of wedlock. He reports that the little child, a girl, is a beautiful creature. It was also confirmed that during the pregnancy of his girlfriend, Mr. Orszag was romancing another woman, which resulted in their engagement. My question is, who changed the rules so that someone could impregnate one woman and simultaneously proceed to get engaged to another woman.
I should have listened carefully to the rest of the report from Washington which included the statement that Mr. Orszag had been “engaged in a committed relationship” with the mother of his child. My question has to do with what in the hell does being involved in a committed relationship have to do with making this woman pregnant without the benefit of marriage. Orszag said nothing about marrying this woman. Indeed, he is engaged to an ABC reporter who may expect to receive the same cavalier treatment as this unfortunate lady who became pregnant.
In my humble opinion, being “engaged in a committed relationship” does not excuse the failure to buy birth control equipment if those two had no intention of marrying. Can Mr. Orzak or the mother of his child, tell me what being engaged in a committed relationship has to do with producing a child outside of wedlock.
You may recall an essay I have written recently wherein my father dealt with the question from a young man about the pregnancy between the young man and his girlfriend. My father said, “Be a man. Marry that girl today.” I know those are stern rules, but it seems to me that if you want to play games, at least you should buy birth control equipment. On the other hand, if the woman is your love in life, it would seem to me that now, with her pregnancy, would be as good a time to marry her as any.
As I grew up, there was no such thing as being engaged in a committed relationship. Committed relationships usually resulted in marriage. Committed relationships did not result in the woman being stuck with a baby who had an absentee father.
Curiously, the same citation about being in a committed relationship was used by the great stud of Wasilla, Alaska. His name, I believe, is Levi Johnston and, from all I can gather, his sole claim to fame is that he impregnated the governor of Alaska’s daughter. News reports claim that Levi Johnston explained on his Facebook page that he was in a “committed relationship” at the tender age of 17 years. When it turned out that the “committed relationship” had resulted in a pregnancy, Mr. Johnston dropped out of school, tried to become an electrician’s apprentice, and ultimately failed to marry the governor’s daughter. Unhappily, he was fired from his electrician’s job because of his failure to have a high school diploma. But in the end, Mr. Johnston “knocked up” the governor’s daughter and declined to marry her. The resulting child has now celebrated her first birthday, and Levi is making a living by running down his prospective mother-in-law. He also has posed for nude photos in Playgirl Magazine.
This is one hell of a note, to compare the actions of Peter Orszag, the President’s Budget Director, with the great stud of Alaska. But there it is.
Peter Orszag and Levi Johnston are not alone in changing the rule of “being a man.” Apparently John Edwards, who was a senator from North Carolina and who was a vice presidential candidate in the 2004 election, had also fathered a child out of wedlock. But at least Edwards did not claim that he was in a committed relationship. I doubt that Edwards would admit that he was in a casual relationship but the facts seem to support the idea that he was also in a committed relationship because the affair had gone on for quite a while. The inescapable fact is that a child was born and it is now fatherless. The secondary fact is that the marriage of Edwards and his wife appears to be on the rocks.
I suppose that you may have been hearing about the sexual conquests of Tiger Woods, the golfer. His marriage is also on shaky grounds, but in his many conquests, I have no report that Tiger Woods ever claimed that he was in a “committed relationship”. Apparently Tiger wanted to diddle every female in sight, including cocktail waitresses and people of that sort.
There is one other citation having to do with the pregnancy of a female in New York City who had been befriended by Jose Reyes, the stellar shortstop of the New York Mets. Once the child was born, Reyes bragged about faithfully visiting her when he is in town. The fact that he is a Dominican citizen probably keeps him away for most of the year, and that child is growing up fatherless.
I know that when men and women get together, there is a high probability that over time sexual activity will take place. I understand that, and I have nothing against such activity. But what grates against my nerves is the excuse that “we were in a committed relationship.” Does being in a committed relationship bar the use of birth control equipment?
I know that there are thousands of cases where the relationship between a man and a woman results in a pregnancy. My question today has to do with who changed the rules. Does being in a committed relationship relieve one of the burdens of fatherhood? I don’t believe so. If you’re going to play with fire, expect to get burned occasionally.
Well, that is my moral mission for today. I was raised by the stern rule of my father who said on occasions such as this one, that when pregnancy occurs, the male member must stand up and “be a man.”
As time goes on, it becomes increasingly clear that if the partners to a pregnancy claim that they were in a committed relationship, the old rules no longer apply. But figuring out such stuff as this is above my pay grade and I will simply wait to see who gets ensnarled in the pleasures of love. But no matter how you cut it, these fatherless children may eventually figure out that they have been abandoned, primarily by their fathers. That, in my humble estimation, is a problem that society ought to avoid at all costs.
E. E. CARR
January 7, 2010
Essay 431
~~
Kevin’s commentary: I mean, I think there’s a false dichotomy here. The choices aren’t “be married or be an absentee father.” I think if one is really in a “committed relationship” in the real sense of that word — not the politician’s sense, clearly — then there is no problem. It is entirely possible to be a caring and loving father to a child without being married to that child’s mother. I know a few such couples and I don’t find any shame in it.
My qualm would rather be with people using that phrase as a euphemism for “we weren’t using birth control” because that’s absolutely stupid, as Pop eloquently noted.