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.
Tony<
"Even in faithful marriages men complain of too little sex far, far more than women do…"
Maybe some of those men who complain about too little sex should look at themselves in the mirror…or help with the housework, grocery shopping, and cooking. Studies have shown that in families where both parents work women still do hours more of household chores every week. Maybe they're exhausted.
I have no doubt that there are women who aren't sexually satisfied even in faithful marriages. Remember…we women reach our sexual peaks later in life than you men.
@Elaine: Do you believe that all men are “wired” to cheat on their wives?
I believe virtually all men are wired to be sexually attracted to healthy young women ready to have children. That is not being wired to CHEAT. Cheating is a behavior, not an impulse, and behavior can be controlled.
If so, why do some men choose to remain faithful?
I choose to be faithful because I believe that cheating would destroy my marriage, even if my wife never knew about it. I believe that breaking my vow to be faithful would harm my wife, and indirectly my daughter, and me. I do not cheat because it isn’t worth it, ever.
As for philanderers, I presume they have a weaker will and are engaging in self-destructive behavior by surrendering to short-term pleasure that will lead to long term loss (like Jesse James cheating on Sandra Bullock), OR, they just think they have nothing to lose, they do not care if whatever relationship they are in survives or doesn’t, so the short-term gain is all they need. It does not make them “real men,” it makes them weak-willed and self-destructive or cowardly selfish men.
@Elaine: So do I, but “an impact” is not determinative, it is just an influence. The underlying sexual desires and sexual judgments are biologically determined, and then influenced by the conscious mind, which may be able to suppress taking action on those desires, but cannot prevent them. As has been shown in the lab, for both males and females, most of the sexual response that occurs in the brain is involuntary.
We are not born as blank slates. Particularly when it comes to sex, it is the one thing we have in common with nearly all animal life, and the most likely to have been hard wired into our pre-conscious ancestry.
Of course society and mores and laws all influence us, it is what keeps men from killing each other in anger. But it is not the reason lingerie is really only worn by women to attract men, and not vice versa.
I am sure Victoria’s Secret would love to sell some sort of male lingerie that turned on women, and men would love to buy it and wear it if it turned on their women: Even in faithful marriages men complain of too little sex far, far more than women do, so if dressing up meant more sex for the men, you can bet men would be lined up to the street.
There is nothing in our American social mores that prevents that world from being; heck we sell penis growth pills and hard-on pills and all sorts of crap that promises to get men more sex. If some kind of garment actually worked, men would buy it openly and without a hint of shame, just as women buy lingerie.
The reason we do not live in a world where men wear any kind of lingerie or garment that turns on women in the bedroom is because of a fundamental biological difference in the sexual turn-ons of men and women. It isn’t a cultural prohibition, it just really doesn’t work.
Tony,
“Do you think the same proportion of women that cheat are doing it for conquest and egotistical reasons?”
What are the proportions of men and women who cheat for conquest and egotistical reasons?
Do you believe that all men are “wired” to cheat on their wives? If so, why do some men choose to remain faithful? Do you think the faithful men may have a weaker sex drive than the cheaters? Are the philanderers the “real” men of the human species?
Tony C.,
I believe that nature and nurture and society/social mores have an impact on our behavior.
@Elaine: I think some womanizers/men who cheat do it for “the conquest” and egotistical reasons.
Do you think the same proportion of women that cheat are doing it for conquest and egotistical reasons?
In a way that observation speaks to my point; male sexual psychology differs dramatically from that of females. Men are quite likely to want something that females are very unlikely to want: A large number of sexual partners with as little “relationship building” as possible and as little subsequent responsibility as possible.
That isn’t due to cultural learning, it is due to reproductive imperatives hard-wired into both males and females. It is no different than sexual orientation, in fact these attitudes are close siblings of sexual orientation. Just as humans do not choose which gender they will be sexually attracted to, humans do not choose their sexual value system.
Both can be overridden, many lesbians first try the straight life, often to the point of marriage and kids, and we are no longer shocked to hear that some married men are secretly gay.
Whatever social mores exist are either reinforcements of or correctives to the underlying biological imperatives: Male reproductive success is maximized by bedding as many women as possible with as little attachment as possible. Female reproductive success is not maximized by bedding as many men as possible, it is maximized by bedding men they can count on for protection and assistance during pregnancy and support of the children, at least until they are no longer infants.
The social mores are a match to that, albeit confused with religion and other societal goals. But men court women with kindness, flowers, gifts, and displays of wealth, and if they don’t have wealth, often with acts of courage, fearlessness, daring and strength.
Why do these generally appeal to women, across cultures?
Why would a female trying to court a male in the same way fail?
It is because there are underlying reproductive strategies hard wired into our psyche, when it comes to sex and mate selection there is far more than “sexual orientation” that is baked in the cake.
Tony C.,
Again I think you perspective throws in too much of the viewpoint outlined in “The Selfish Gene” by Dawkins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
And too little of the effect Elaine put forth:
“I believe that nature and nurture and society/social mores have an impact on our behavior.”
All I know is I’ve always had a very healthy sex drive and yet it was in the context of a needing a satisfying intimate relationship. I’ve had my share of one-night stands prior to my marriage, but afterwards I always felt dissatisfied. This is stated not as some sort of attempt to seem feminist, which I am though, but sincerely. I’ve never understood, even remembering the sexual imperative of youth, why a male would let a perfect stranger handle their equipment so to speak.
The sex drive can and should be over-ridden when you have little idea of the person you are sharing sex with. As far as the historical genetic context that you have couched your points in, I think it ignores the importance of the economic/social power structure that has been the human norm for centuries. Among the Great Apes, the Alpha gets his choice of females.. Although I have a dim view of how much we’ve evolved beyond that state, I think the invention of human society gives us choices that can easily override biological urges, if we so wish. If I’ve learned anything in my sexual life it is that prudence must temper desire. This is hardly a prudish attitude on my part, merely one informed by experience.
Elaine,
Without a doubt, but in the two/three instances here, the pathology is similar – compulsion and reward. Some people’s compulsions are more cerebral, some are more chemical, but both have neurochemical components to reward even if the compulsions are different. That was my only point. Ethically speaking, I have issues with all three behaviors, but then again I’ve always been a one relationship at a time kind of guy.
Gene,
A reward is also the conquest, isn’t it? One more notch on the bedpost?
Never discount the power of a pheromone.
Elaine,
“I think some womanizers/men who cheat do it for “the conquest” and egotistical reasons.”
I’m not sure you can entirely divorce that from for the pleasure of sex. True, some people have a sexual addiction and on that level, they are both psychologically and physiologically addicted to the adrenalin, dopamine, oxytocin, norepinephrine, and endorphins released during sex in which the act itself becomes the obsession. However, the conquest/egotistical mode is still related to this – their primary driver may be conquest and/or ego massage, but the reward for that still has that chemical component to it in addition to satisfying a compulsion. Similar creatures medically speaking.
Tony C.,
I think some womanizers/men who cheat do it for “the conquest” and egotistical reasons.
Old Ron Paul Video Warns of One-World Religion, UN Dictatorship
By Tim Murphy
Tue Dec. 27, 2011
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/ron-paul-movie-john-birch-society
Excerpt:
Rep. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign has run into trouble recently after national media refocused on decades-old racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and deeply conspiratorial articles published under Paul’s name (and at least occasionally under his signature) in late 1980s and early 1990s newsletters.
The Texas congressman, who defended the newsletters when they first became a political issue in 1996, has since disavowed their contents repeatedly. But in a 1998 John Birch Society film unearthed by Andy Kaczynski, Paul endorsed some of the more paranoid ideas outlined in the Ron Paul Survival Report—including the the idea that a United Nations dictatorship was imminent…
@Elaine: The majority of women agree with you. It is the reason pornography for women (the explicit ‘romance’ novel) requires a storyline that can convey those qualities, and pornography for men does not.
A similar division holds in cheating: The vast majority of men that cheat do so for the pleasure of sex, while the vast majority of women that cheat say the pleasure of sex is secondary, their primary goal is the pleasure of company, feeling loved, wanted, respected, some sort of an emotional connection they no longer feel with the person they are cheating on.
Men and women just differ in their sexual psychology, it doesn’t mean one is better than the other, and it doesn’t mean we cannot override our instincts. Newt is still a corrupt, cheating, weak-ass lying bastard.
FACT CHECK: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletters
By Judd Legum on Dec 27, 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/
Excerpt:
Paul’s denials, however, are not supported by the public record. When the newsletters first arose as an issue in 1996, Paul didn’t deny authorship. Instead, Paul personally repeated and defended some of the most incendiary racial claims in the newsletters.
In May 1996, Paul was confronted in an interview by the Dallas Morning News about a line that appeared in a 1992 newsletter, under the headline “Terrorist Update”: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.” His response:
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation…
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.
Paul also defended his claim, made in the same 1992 newsletter that “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” Paul told the Dallas Morning News the statistic was an “assumption” you can gather from published studies.
Paul’s failure to deny authorship was not an oversight. He was repeatedly confronted about the newsletters during his 1996 campaign and consistently defended them as his own. A few examples:
– In 1996, Ron Paul’s campaign defended his statements about the rationality of fearing black men. (“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”) The Houston Chronicle reports, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]
– Paul said that his comments on blacks contained in the newsletters should be viewed in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]
– Paul defended statements from an August 12, 1992 newsletter calling the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “moron” and a “fraud.” Paul also said Jordon was “her race and sex protect her from criticism.” In response, Paul said “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference.” [Roll Call, 7/29/96]
– “Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views.” [Austin American Statesman, 5/23/96]
Contrary to his statements to CNN last week, it was not until 2001, that he first claimed that newsletters were not written by him. He told the Texas Monthly in the October 2001 edition that “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me.” The reporter noted, “until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret.”
The only difference between Ron Paul and the rest of the Republican/Tparty candidates is who they hate. They all hate some group or another. It is the party of HATE.
“Tex and I are going to dinner at our favorite restaurant where the chef is preparing a meal just for us. We have no idea what he is preparing nor what wines he will be serving with each coarse. It’s all a big surprise and our Christmas gift to each other. Luxury … ” -Blouise
Enjoy…. It sounds wonderful… (Looking forward to the details.)
Tony,
As to men being more easily aroused by appearance than are women, I’d say–speaking as a woman–that my interest in a man is aroused by his appearance of intelligence, his sense of humor, and his consideration for others. All those hunks can keep their washboard abs behind buttoned shirts as far as I’m concerned.
Tony,
Ah, Sarah Palin is an excellent example but never the less in the minority and I would be willing to wager that she now handles power with greater sensitivity to her own failings than she did back in 2007 -’08.
The Hillary example is common to both men and women … desire for luxury and infusing the power of the performance into one’s everyday life .. I am entitled to the best table, the best suite, the best limo because of who I am and the power I possess … is as much misused by men as women.
“I do not think women with power are inherently more honorable than men with power …” (Tony) Inherently? … perhaps not … but I do think women are quicker to understand the dishonor and danger to their own advancement of misusing power than men and I wonder why.
Perhaps it is inherent and due to the lack of high levels of testosterone.
Thanks for the discussion. I must sign off now. Tex and I are going to dinner at our favorite restaurant where the chef is preparing a meal just for us. We have no idea what he is preparing nor what wines he will be serving with each coarse. It’s all a big surprise and our Christmas gift to each other. Luxury … 😉
@Gene: Like I said, evolution is a gambler playing the odds. The outcome may be unique to the person, but the averages and studies do not lie, a few hyper-sexual females notwithstanding. How many nationally known male actors or rock stars or male sports stars bed hundreds of women? Versus, how many nationally known female actresses, singing sensations or sports stars have bed hundreds of men?
I would be quite surprised if the percentages were even remotely comparable.