Politics, Religion, Society

Court Papers Reportedly Contradict Gingrich On First Divorce

One of the most difficult problems faced by Newt Gingrich in appealing to religious voters is his record of adultery and three marriages. His campaign insists that it was his first wife, Jackie, not Gingrich, who wanted the first divorce. However, recently released papers contradict that claim and indicate it was Newt Gingrich who wanted the divorce.


The campaign previously insisted that “it was (Jackie Gingrich) that requested the divorce, not Newt.”

That first divorce was particularly because Jackie was reportedly dying of cancer and rumors suggested that Newt actually served the divorce papers the day after her cancer surgery — Gingrich denies the claims as does their daughter.

CNN was told the divorce papers were sealed but it later found the documents.
Friends of both Gingrich and his first wife contradicted Gingrich’s claims about who wanted the divorce.

The papers show that Newt Gingrich filed a divorce complaint on July 14, 1980, in Carroll County, saying that “the marriage of the parties is irretrievably (sic) broken.” Even more interesting is that Jackie filed opposing the filing — a curious response if she wanted the divorce or, as the campaign claimed today, she asked him to file the papers. She added that “[a]lthough defendant does not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken, defendant has been hopeful that an arrangement for temporary support of defendant and the two minor daughters of the parties could be mutually agreed upon without the intervention of this court . . . All efforts to date have been unsuccessful.”
Jackie Gingrich has never spoken to the media on the allegations. However, in 1985, she stated”He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise.”

The bigger concern for evangelical voters is that Gingrich was already in a relationship with a 28-year-old congressional aide at the time. He later married the aide, Marianne Ginther Gingrich, and then divorced her 19 years later for another, and younger, congressional aide whom he married soon after his divorce. The third wife, Callista Bisek Gingrich, is now campaigning for him.

I have previously written how candidates like Gingrich who are running on faith should not complain when asked about their own commitment to faith. In this case, Gingrich clearly violated (repeatedly) an oath to God in a different ceremony. With the declining separation of church and state, such questions are likely to increase.

How relevant should that be to voters? Would it be equally relevant if he was not campaigning for religious voters?

Source: CNN

FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 30, 2011.

241 thoughts on “Court Papers Reportedly Contradict Gingrich On First Divorce”

  2. Tony C.,

    “Extreme promiscuity is far more rare in women than it is in men.”

    Part of the reason may be society and the old double standard: Men who are promsicuous are considered to be studs; women who are promiscuous are thought to be sluts.

  4. In may father’s time, a divorce (which could then only be obtained on fault grounds like adultery or cruelty) would disqualify a person from advancement in his job or from partner’s status within a profession. I used to laugh these off as conventions of the past based on antiquated and unreliable markers of fidelity and honor which seemed so revealing of character to the leading men of my father’s day. As I look now on the current crop of persons jockeying to become our rulers, I am becoming more impressed with the decision-making of the past and reconsidering my own attitudes about the qualifications of those who would have us bestow our trust in them.

  5. SM,

    I think the motives of Paul’s ex-employee are suspect. He was fired by Paul for continuing to push Paul to support the post-9/11 wars.

    Eric Dondero (a.k.a. Eric Rittberg) made similar statements about Paul in 2007 when Paul was competing in the primaries. Dondero supported Giuliani. Dondero also stated that he would challenge Paul in TX-14 with a “balls to the wall” campaign.

    From the NYT 2007:

    For Eric Dondero, who plans to challenge him in the Republican Congressional primary next fall, foreign policy is Paul’s central failing. Dondero, who is 44, was Paul’s aide and sometime spokesman for more than a decade. According to Dondero, “When 9/11 happened, he just completely changed. One of the first things he said was not how awful the tragedy was . . . it was, ‘Now we’re gonna get big government.’ ”

  6. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”—-‘faithfully’ as in the manner of a faithful spouse? Or does constitutional fidelity mean something entirely different than its ordinary definition? At any rate a serial adulterer’s promise of fidelity to anyone including spouses and fellow citizens is really not to be trusted.

  9. Puzzling,

    Buckley’s article in the National Review in 1991 titled “In Search of Anti-Semitism described Buchanan as an “anti-semite” but since they were lifelong friends, Buckley somewhat softened his critique. I personally do not label people anti-Jewish because they don’t support Israel. That is a foreign policy issue open to debate. I call someone anti-Jewish (I avoid the use of “anti-semitism” because frankly “Semitic” was used by 19th Century eugenicists derogatorily) when they think of Jewish people in hateful stereotypes. Buchanan does and apparently Paul allowed a newsletter published under his for the same type of thing.

    Rcampbell,

    I strongly agree with and support both your comments.

  10. @rcampbell: At least some of the time the Dem will represent the interests of the American people and those who don’t buy lobbyists.

    I no longer believe that, about Obama or any other Democrat. Obama failed to represent us on the right to a trial, on our freedom of speech, on the privacy of our emails and phone calls, on our freedom from search without a warrant. He promised us, on tape, he would not vote for a health care bill without a public option, then secretly sent Rahm to sabotage it because he had promised in a no-longer-secret meeting with pharma and the health insurance companies (which he had also promised to have none of) that the public option would never happen.

    But the politicians drew it out for months, because at the beginning of the debate the public option was polling at 75% approval, and they knew it would be a great source of campaign contributions, no matter whether the pitch was to save it or kill it.

    What we got is not a step away from the domination of the for-profit insurers, what we got gives them $100 for $5 worth of additional coverage. It is just another rip off, and further solidifies their hold on our wallets.

    I think that anybody voting for Obama, or Romney, or Newt, or Perry is unwittingly voting for the continuation of the destruction of America and irrelevancy of Constitutional rights, perhaps irretrievably. I never thought that would happen in my lifetime, but it seems quite probable now.

  11. Mike,

    If Buckley’s objection over Buchanan’s opposition to the Gulf War (or just his current objection to the coming US/Israel war with Iran) qualifies one to be an “anti-Jewish racist”, that’s quite a broad indictment.

  12. My biggest beef with libertarians is that they appear to have no sense of community or even of country. It’s an everyone-for-themselves and you’re-on-your-own philosophy that glorifies the individual and ignores or harms the communal aspects of living and working for a common national identity and purpose. It strikes me as more closely embracing the royal model or anarchy rather than a democratic (small d) model. Libertarians act as though the government is something other than what it is—us. They promote an anti-government rhetoric instead of a participtory one. They don’t want people to get involved in the democracy, they want people to ignore it or get rid of it. I don’t see any evidence our Founders had that in mind for America.

  13. Tony C

    Can’t share your enthusiasm for Paul, cautionary as it might be. I cannot live with the elements of his policies with which I disagree and find as vile and abhorant as those of all the other Republicans’. Though personally a Roosevelt-style Democrat, I’ll take the corporate Democrat every time over any conservative. At least some of the time the Dem will represent the interests of the American people and those who don’t buy lobbyists. That’s never going to happen with a conservative. They’ve proven enough times that they are either unwilling or unable to govern with consideration for people versus corporate interests and I don’t need to see America subjected to their destructive impulses ever again.

    I wanted to see the health insurance companies put out of business and replaced by a single payer, universal coverage system. But I’m willing to accept what we got as a step away from from the domination of for-profit insurers and to get coverage for more people.

    Your, our, choice will be between the two corporatists, though. It’ll be Obama vs Romney with the future of the Supreme Court hanging in the balance. I’ll take Mr Obama.

  14. Puzzling and Tony C.,

    The linked defenses of Paul I find reminiscent of Wm. F. Buckley’s article admitting that Pat Buchanan was an anti-Jewish racist, but then equivocated by stating his other good qualities. Paul made a lot of money from a bigoted newsletter that went out under his name. to me that alone loses my vote as does any association with Von Mises.

  16. @Blouise: I wonder why female politicians don’t have this problem.

    I don’t think that is snarky. Not to be a misogynist, but there are clear evolutionary psychology explanations for that phenomenon, to which I subscribe.

    It is in a man’s reproductive interest to be as sexually promiscuous as he can be, it is not in a woman’s reproductive interest to be promiscuous.

    It is possible for a promiscuous man to father over 10,000 children in his lifetime; about 500 times more than the maximum children a woman can have, no matter how promiscuous she may be. Extreme promiscuity is far more rare in women than it is in men.

    Also, although many women tend to be attracted to wealthy, powerful and socially prominent older men, young men are seldom sexually attracted to wealthy, powerful and socially prominent older women. Their better reproductive bet is a young, healthy, symmetrical woman.

    I am not saying anything is impossible here, but when it comes to sexual attraction, betting that attraction will favor the odds of reproductive success has proven a winning strategy in thousands of pyschological and sociological experiments. Even if nobody is thinking about “reproductive success” when their eyes light up.

  17. As for why men are more prone to this sort of bad behavior – testosterone poisoning, plain and simple.

  18. Blouise – perhaps you missed the little embarrassment of the now-former majority leader of the Minnesota Senate. GOP Senator Amy Koch (no idea if she is related to those Kochs) seems to have slipped from her family & into the sack with a nasty bit of work who was her communications dir. It did however have one happy moment – Minnesota’s gay community begged for forgiveness since it HAD to be their drive for marriage equality that caused the problem:
    http://www.autostraddle.com/minnesotta-gays-and-lesbians-appologize-for-causing-amy-kochs-illicit-affair-and-ruining-everything-125585/

  19. Tony C,

    I ran across that article after Greenwald recommended it. The author acknowledges the seriousness of the newsletters but considers broader questions:

    In 2012, when accused terrorists are held indefinitely without charges or trial, and folks accused of drug possession have their doors broken down by flash-grenade wielding SWAT teams in no-knock raids, Paul would arguably protect the rights of racial, religious or ethnic minority groups better than Obama, regardless of whether Paul is now or ever was a racist, and irrespective of the fact that Obama, as the first black president, has in some ways transformed Americans’ thinking on race. (LBJ, who signed the Civil Rights Act, was not know for his personal progressivism on race or women’s rights, but he nonetheless backed policies that had powerful consequences for women and minorities).

    What I want Paul detractors to confront is that he alone, among viable candidates, favors reforming certain atrocious policies, including policies that explicitly target ethnic and religious minorities. And that, appalling as it is, every candidate in 2012 who has polled above 10 percent is complicit in some heinous policy or action or association. Paul’s association with racist newsletters is a serious moral failing, and even so, it doesn’t save us from making a fraught moral judgment about whether or not to support his candidacy, even if we’re judging by the single metric of protecting racial or ethnic minority groups, because when it comes to America’s most racist or racially fraught policies, Paul is arguably on the right side of all of them.

  20. In A Nutshell.Newt form a person who held the office you seek and saw people like you coming.

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
    Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
    16th president of US (1809 – 1865)”

Comments are closed.