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”

  3. Ron Paul
    – Doesn’t accept the theory of evolution.
    Neither do most Americans. According to Gallup, only 39% of Americans answer “yes” to the question “Do you believe in evolution?” Only 13% believe in evolution without any aid or guidance from God.

    – Doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose.
    To be clear, he has said he believes Roe v. Wade was decided wrongly and abortion law should have been left to the states, and he has said he will enforce the law of the land even if he doesn’t agree with it, and he has said his belief is that human life starts at conception.

    – Thinks Social Security should be abolished (and)
    – Claims Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional.
    Anybody that thinks the President has the power to unilaterally abolish the most popular government programs in American history is delusional. Ron Paul can be overridden by Congress, and on these programs also, Ron Paul has said he will follow the law until it is overturned by new law, if that ever happens, and THAT is virtually impossible.

    – Published racist/anti-gay newsletters.
    Paul voted twice, in both key decisions where he had a vote, to repeal DADT and allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and it isn’t like Ron Paul is a stranger to voting his mind all alone. That seems like evidence he didn’t really believe what was written in those newsletters.

  5. 1zb1,
    Great list!
    Elaine,
    I agree with your assessment of Ron Paul. He is also pro-unregulated business because the market will solve all problems and weed out those corporations that pollute.

  6. Tony C.,

    I agree with you about Ron Paul. While I think he is right on a number of issues, I disagree with his position on many others–including the following:

    Ron Paul
    – Doesn’t accept the theory of evolution.
    – Doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose.
    – Thinks Social Security should be abolished.
    – Claims Medicare and Medicaid are unconstitutional.
    – Published racist/anti-gay newsletters.

  7. @Jill: I’m still trying to understand why Obama supporters object to those who support other Republican candidates.

    It is just tribalism, Jill. Obama supporters believe Obama. Bachmann supporters believe Bachmann. Paul supporters believe Paul. Evidence doesn’t sway them, they aren’t interested in following logic or making conclusions, and they all believe the other side would be worse than their side, because their side is telling them what they want to hear and the other side is spoutin’ crazy talk.

    Certainly electing Ron Paul would also make one instrumental in allowing harm to come to others, Ron Paul wants to abolish government agencies that have saved others from harm, and benefited others. Ron Paul is opposed to regulating business, when virtually all the regulations on the books are there to protect citizens from the reckless disregard of business that harms others, with pollution, endangerment, unsafe products, fraudulent claims and more. Those regulations are in place because the free market failed to alleviate those harms. A corporatist Congress will be happy to undo those regulations and reinstitute those harms, and Paul’s philosophy is amenable to signing those bills.

    Electing Paul will harm others, electing Romney or Gingrich will harm others, reelecting Obama will harm others. The issue is judging the combination of short-term harm and long-term harm.

  12. I’m still trying to understand why Obama supporters object to those who support other Republican candidates. I listed this elsewhere but all of you, who support Obama or another Republican candidate other than Ron Paul agree on the following:

    1. a president may torture
    2. a president may kill American citizens on his/her own say so
    3. people may be indefinitely imprisoned without trial
    4. people may have all their communications monitored
    5. the US should be a global, military empire
    6. it is fine that 1/2 of our people are in poverty or near the poverty level
    7. the banking industry may continue to commit criminal acts with impunity, right now the total stolen lies at at least 23 trillion-this is acceptable
    8. the rule of law and the Constitution do not matter
    9. the abuse of protesters is acceptable

    I say the majority of people agree that the above items are acceptable because the majority of people will vote for candidates who hold these positions. If they did not on some level countenance these positions, they could not vote for candidates who are currently or will in the future implement these policies.

    I also listed the consequences of this shared belief system.

    Because the political/corporate/military class understands that they have the backing of the majority of our population, they will continue these policies. There will be no arrests, only an increasing amount of police state powers brought against anyone who dissents. In the meantime, the majority of the population will consent to police state powers used against dissenters and they themselves will make certain, in their own way, to silence the dissenters, including the dissent inside their own conscience (at least those who have one).

    It is hypocritical to object to these policies when adopted by a self identified Republican but be willing to vote for a man who holds every one of these same positions because he self identifies as a Democrat. These positions should not be supported. Because you as Obama supporters will vote for, donate to and speak on behalf of a person who carries them out, you have absolutely no moral standing to criticize someone who believes the other candidates are good choices. You are instrumental in shaping this society into a police state. You are instrumental in allowing harm to come to others.

    1. Comparing the Republican/Tparty principles, reality, or candidates to Obama and the Democrats is like comparing the dark ages to the 20th century – sure there is plenty wrong with the 20th century but that doesn’t mean I want to go back to the dark ages, where, incidently, you as a woman would have no rights and be considered property.

      WHAT OBAMA HAS ACCOMPLISHED:

      – Saved the country from Republican caused full blown depression. – Healthcare for 30 million people. – Rained in Insurance Companies – Financial Regulation of Banking Industry. – Killed Bin Laden. – Courage to go after them in Pakistan. (Republicans did not) – Got rid of Gadhafi in 6 months, 2 billion dollar cost, no American Lives. (Compare to Republicans 10 years in Iraq, trillion dollars, & thousands Americans lost) – Beat Republicans holding country hostage over debt crisis. – Ending Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy . – 3 Trillion in deficit Reduction (Super committee, Bringing Troops Home, End of Bush Tax Cuts for Wealthy) – Brought troops home from Iraq. – Stabilized situation in Afghan (Republicans had abandoned) – Ended Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (a vestige of Republican Bigotry) – Payroll Tax cut for middle class. – Extended unemployment benefits. – Got China to reduce currency manipulation. – Strengthened America’s Military Position in Asia to confront China. – Financial support to states and local governments for police & teachers. – Slowed illegal immigration and deported more criminal illegal immigrants then Bush/Republicans. – Protected Social Security and Medicare from Republicans. – Set back Iran’s nuclear program with software virus. – Opening up Miramar. – Fixing Republican Donut Hole Drug Plan. – Saving 100 Billion Dollars on healthcare plan. – Protecting Patients from coverage denial. – More health and job help for Veterans.- Saved American Automobile Industry that Republicans wanted to abandon.- Helped get $20 billion Aircraft Sale for Boeing. And more!

      WHAT REPUBLICAN’S HAVE ACCOMPLISHED: – Caused the worst economic crisis since Great Depression. – Lied our way into a trillion dollar war in Iraq (that has killed or wounded nearly 50,000 Americans) – Unfunded war in Iraq.
      – Unfunded Tax Cut for Millionaires. – Virtually abandoned Afghanistan. – Did not get Bin Laden. – Caused housing crisis. – Turned a 3 trillion dollar surplus into a 5 trillion dollar Deficit – Caused Banking Crisis – Made the whole world angry at us. – Sent millions of Jobs to China – Killed millions of Jobs in America – 911 – Held the nation hostage over the debt – No healthcare. – Increased the wealth gaps between rich and middle class. – Assault on personal liberties. – Ignored China’s growing power. – Did almost nothing to stop Iran nuclear efforts – Unfunded drug plan with donut hole – Gave Tax cuts to the wealthy even as we went to war. – Republican Appointed Supreme Court gave Corporations more rights then citizens. – Republican Appointed Supreme Court blocked campaign finance reform.

      WHAT TO EXPECT IF REPUBLICANS WIN THE ELECTION: (Based on past actions and statements by candidates)
      – More Tax Cuts for wealthy and big corporations;- Cuts to Social Security and Medicare and probable effort to eliminate;- Appointment of 2 new Supreme Court Justices like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito;- Overturning a Woman’s Right To choose;- Deregulation of Financial Industry;- Elimination of regulation that protects the environment, consumers, minorities, workers.- Elimination of worker’s rights to organize;- Ending healthcare for 30 million people; – Elimination of regulation of the Insurance industry;- Elimination of right to sue medical providers for mistakes;- Elimination of protection against insurance company denial of medical coverage;- Unfunded war against Iran;- Elimination of Child labor Laws;- Religious Takeover of government;- Higher taxes on middleclass and poor;- Cut in aid to Students and education;- Elimination of Department of Education;- Giving States the Right to discriminate;- Economic Trade War;- Destruction of National Parks;- Loss of Millions of Government worker Jobs thereby undermining effective government;- Attacks on Gay Rights and other minorities.- Increase in military spending on wasteful programs;- Keeping Troops in Iraq even though they don’t want us.

    2. Jill,

      As Spiro Agnew once opined you act at times like a battering nabob of negativity. Your last comment managed to be both insulting and patronizing. I have made clear why I will vote for Obama many times and it is not because he’s a Democrat. You and Tony talk a great game of political purity, but offer no one who will make it any better for the 99%, who has a chance of winning. You will of course do as you please, but I for one am not into phyrric victory’s of pious political dogmatism. I have too much empathy for those who will behurt by any current Republican campaigning.

  15. @Elaine: No, in cultures that have oppressed or enslaved females, it is still males that must sell themselves, just not directly to the female: To the person that controls her fate, usually her father or some other male authority.

    In the vast majority of species, including ours, males must prove themselves worthy of being chosen by a female. The females do not have to prove anything, they either appeal to some males or they do not, and they do not increase their appeal by feats of daring, strength, stamina or courage.

    The societies where females are not free to choose are not atypical of normal human behavior; greed, control and oppression by force are all normal human behavior. They are atypical of normal human sexuality, in which, like most other species, the females choose their mates from among the males that choose to court them.

  16. “…the males that are selling and the females that are buying, at least in modern societies where the females have not been oppressed and enslaved.”

    I’d say there are still plenty of cultures and countries where women are still oppressed and enslaved. There are even instances within our own country. So, is it only in modern societies where males typically do the selling? Are the other societies atypical of normal human behavior?

  17. @Mike: I think the invention of human society gives us choices that can easily override biological urges

    I think the question is not whether we can override them, I think the question is whether they exist, and precisely what they are in males and females, and how they differ in males and females.

    Of course we can override them, by sheer willpower. Anthropologists have even shown that chimpanzees can override them: Sexually excited males will refrain from engaging in sex with a ready female in front of an alpha male, even to the point of leaving the scene, but if the alpha male is out of sight they will attempt to engage, sometimes successfully. The first part is self-restraint (for fear of being beaten, but self-restraint).

    I am arguing that the urges are pre-programmed and differ dramatically between males and females. With variation, and with programming error, but among typical heterosexual males and females there is a large difference in the sexual urges, and most of the difference makes sense in the light of their inevitably different reproductive roles.

    A man can father a child with a dozen calories and leave a woman to expend millions of calories to birth and raise the child. That’s it. That is huge dichotomy, and it is reflected in the evolution of our respective psyches and sexual behaviors.

    And not just ours, in the sexual behaviors of almost all animals. Birds have no social mores that dictate the males must put on a show to impress females. Their society does not dictate that females choose their mates. Their urges and the roles they assume are biological. So are ours.

    So sure, as individuals we can override them, or let our intellect rule, but typically in humans, just like the birds, it is the males that are selling and the females that are buying, at least in modern societies where the females have not been oppressed and enslaved.

  18. Tony C.,

    “But feel free to ignore science and reality when they fail to support your preconceived notions, that is the American Way.”

    Chill out, Tony! We’re having a discussion. I thought I brought up some points that were pertinent to the discussion at hand. I have no doubt that men and women are “wired” differently. That doesn’t mean we have all the answers as to why people behave the way they do.

    You keep talking about scientific studies. Why not provide information about how and when they were conducted and whose sexual appetites were studied.

  19. @Elaine: Or maybe the women simply do not want sex as much or as often as their men, regardless of the housework they are doing; which is what the science actually indicates even when we control for externalities like household duties. Even in wealthy households where women have no such duties, women want sex less than men.

    But feel free to ignore science and reality when they fail to support your preconceived notions, that is the American Way.

Comments are closed.