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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html
Think all issues about “rights” are easy choices:
“Are Medical Journals a Threat to National Security?
Scientists are butting heads with the government over whether scientific openness trumps national security ”
Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/12/27/should-medical-journals-print-info-that-could-help-bioterrorists/#ixzz1hjx3vyIo
“Just because we have the right to be ignorant doesn’t mean we have to exercise it all the time.” (you can quote me with that one)
raff,
Elaine asked if a man who was faithful to one woman was a biological oddball.
You are perfectly safe telling your wife you are a biological oddball. I would not, however, suggest to her that you aren’t. 😉
Tony,
I will not argue with all of the perfectly valid points you raised as they are very much a part of our human nature (mother nature, if you will) and convinced me a long time ago that it was not a man who invented religion, but a woman. She did so to for purely practical reasons … to keep the father of her children in the home providing for his off-spring … an insurance policy that threatens damnation.
As proof, I offer you Mary, Mother of God. But that is a fun discussion for another time.
Women have always been promiscuous … ask any nurse who runs the blood tests on newborns. Look at successful Hollywood stars, then and now. Powerful women throughout history have been promiscuous … Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I (now there was a politician who understood the power of Mary, Mother of God … the Virgin Queen).
No, there is something else at work here but I don’t think it has as much to do with the sex drive as it does with the ability to bring intellect to emotion in order to maintain power.
Mike,
Don’t forget that Dr. Paul does not believe in Evolution!
Blouise and Elaine,
I am not going to tell my wife she is a biological oddball!! I am slow but not that stupid. 🙂
“Are men who are faithful to one woman biological oddballs?” (Elaine)
lol … that was great!!!
Bonnie
To Tony C: What the heck is a symmetrical woman????!
===================================================
Both breasts are the same size?! …;)
(leave it alone, Tony)
Commoner,
Paul frightens me on two levels. The first is the possible bigotry coupled with being wed to the Von Muses school of economics. The second is even more disturbing is his opposition to abortion. Since we know his is wed to Ayn Rand’s objectivism, his religious views represent an almost pathological sense of denial. The psychological defense mechanism of denial in someone with power is dangerous because they can turn any action into something that is ethically unsupported by their own belief system.
Tony C.,
“Among human females, the extent of their competition is in the social rank of their children, not whether or not they will reproduce at all.”
Really? What about the social rank of their husbands? What about women taking pride in their own accomplishments?
A few decades of birth control did change quite a few things. The modern world is a different place than the one I grew up in. Many women have different expectations for themselves than they did in the past. More women have premarital sex without fear of becoming pregnant. Many educated women marry and have children later in life than they did before. Many married mothers work.
Are men who are faithful to one woman biological oddballs?
@Elaine: 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.
I believe the societal double standard arises directly from the biological double standard. Women who are promiscuous are acting against their own best interest, in the eyes of both men and women, because biologically they are taking an enormously foolish risk. By failing to secure a commitment of care from a man, they risk becoming pregnant and then being responsible for a child alone, with the added burden of making it more difficult to attract a mate that would then have to support a child that wasn’t his. In short, a promiscuous women risks a life of poverty, so unless she is already relegated to a life of poverty, she risks a great deal.
A man does not, because he does not risk pregnancy. Not the incapacitation, the health risk, the responsibility of raising a child, or the expense of a child. The risks are completely asymmetrical. To be a “stud” means to be of such high quality that you warrant having as many offspring as possible, and historically speaking, for a man to have several women and many children has been a sign of status and success. Because obviously, the women are won at the expense of other men.
In fact, based on DNA studies, Baumeister reports that in the last 50,000 years, 2/3 of our ancestors are female: If 70% of all women have reproduced, only 35% of all men reproduced. Yes, each child has one mother and one father, but the pattern among men is that some men have lots and lots of children while other men have none at all.
Which is another way of saying that men have to compete to reproduce, while woman typically do not: Woman may compete with each other for better men, but if they want to be a mother they can typically find some man willing to father their children. This has not been true for the male of our species (or most species) at all, about 2/3 of males have failed to find any woman to bear their child.
As such there exists a life-and-death competition among males to have offspring that simply does not exist among women, and that has had its effects in the biological programming of male psychology. There is a reason men compete, and take risks, and go adventuring, and even a reason males of so many species (including ours) have on average 50% more body mass than the females: Males must compete to reproduce (and in the past most frequently that was physical competition) and females do not. Among human females, the extent of their competition is in the social rank of their children, not whether or not they will reproduce at all.
The social mores and customs and stereotypes are a reflection of the irrefutable biological differences in reproduction, which produce differences in basic mating psychology, and a few decades of birth control isn’t going to change a biologically programmed value system.
commoner, Sometimes Gail Sheehy has insight. Gingrich’s stepfather was an abusive alcoholic. This back round often leads to addictive behaviors such as compulsive womanizing and compulsive overeating. Bill Clinton had a similar back round and engaged in similar behaviors. It does not excuse it but offers some insight.
@Swarthmore mom-
So he had a difficult childhood. That does not excuse his behavior. That article reads like a well written Tabloid.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/22/newt-gingrich-s-bipolar-mother-kit-gingrich-and-his-difficult-childhood.html
The past is past, bygones be bygones. Uh, by the way, by the bye, who is his present aide of female persuasion? Inquiring minds want to know.
@Bonnie: Physical bilateral symmetry is a sign of health. In the body, limbs, breast, face, cheekbones, nose, teeth and eye spacing, for both males and females. This is even true across species, female peacocks will preferentially mate with males with symmetric tails over those with asymmetric tails. Asymmetry is typically caused by disease and malnutrition. Symmetry is one of the key features looked for in aspiring models.
In psychology experiments when people rate people for looks, even though they do not consciously realize it they will put a great deal of emphasis on the symmetry of facial features: The more symmetrical the facial features are, the higher the rating the faces will get. Very few people are completely symmetrical; the left half of the face photo-shopped with its own reflection and the right half of the face photo-shopped with its own reflection look more like siblings than identical twins.
@Mike Spindell
I agree with you. Ron Paul is even worse if possible. Where did all of these idiots spring up from?
Commoner has previously written on this topic. Should yucky Newt be nominated, Obama will probably get my vote. I know this controversy is dated, but it never gets old to me.
A list of financial disclosures and support demands from the divorce reveals (according to Raw Story) this list of Newt’s expenses and debts. I find it interesting that he had payments owed to a jewelry store. He’s been a bling addict for 30 years apparently. 🙂
“Attached was an estimate of Gingrich’s gross monthly income from “Congress ($5,015.21), which, after taxes and insurance payments, was an estimated net of $3.341.24. He claimed to be spending money on houses in Fairfax and Arlington, the utilities on a Virginia house, $407 a month on food, $75 on an orthodontist and $477 a month on his various bank debts unrelated to any mortgages. He also had $120 — due in 4 remaining payments — to Cole’s jewelry store. (Marianne Ginther Gingrich told Esquire that he’d already asked her to marry him at that point.)”
—————-
Blouise, Sarah Palin may have broken the mold for women in politics regarding sexual scandals; rumors of an affair with her husband’s business partner were made several times but there didn’t seem to be any follow-up.
—————
Mespo: “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.”
**
Right, Being divorced probably kept Nelson Rockefeller from being a serious contender for president in the early 60’s.
I checked Wikipedia to get the year but found this instead which is far more interesting:
” Rockefeller, favored by moderate and liberal Republicans, was considered the front-runner for the 1964 campaign against conservative Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who led the right wing of the Republican Party. In 1963, a year after Rockefeller’s divorce from his first wife, he married Margaretta “Happy” Murphy, a divorcee with four children.[49] This turned many in the party off, especially women.[49] The divorce hurt Rockefeller’s standing among voters and was widely condemned by politicians, including US Senator Prescott Bush (R-Connecticut), …”
That old fascist and traitor Prescott Bush helped deep-six Rockefeller over divorce? Actually Rockefeller was a centrist Republican which probably offended Bush (from the right-wing of the party) greatly and divorce was a convenient pretext for the attack.
Interesting story Mespo. I am just shocked that Newt lied about his first divorce!
OOPS! Fat fingers tonight. ‘Hardigree’ should be Hardegree.
Sorry, Craig.