Mark Sanford Announces Break-up with His Argentinian Fiancee in a Rambling, Bizarre Facebook Post
By Kyle Becker 50 mins ago
The already too-public love life of former South Carolina Governor and current House member Mark Sanford has become even more public with a lengthy and difficult-to-decypher post apparently spurred by a break-up with his fiancee and former Argentinian mistress Maria Belen Chapur. Politico reported the “rambling” post, which is getting the attention of many political observers. Oh, and he posted it on Facebook. It’s best to just dive into this bad boy, so grab a chablis (non-alcoholic, if you prefer), and digest this stemwinder:
I apologize for the length of this post, but given the gravity of the issue at hand when I sat down to write late last night a long list of things came to my mind.
More than anything, I am struck by two truths. One, it seems that history well documents that those who work to avoid conflict at all costs wind up being those destined in many instances to find much conflict. Peace at all costs rarely brings it. On the other hand, Jesus was incredibly clear in the book of Luke that we are to turn the other cheek at offenses and that if someone took our shirt, we were to offer our coat as well.
In this light I have struggled in how to respond since being contacted little more than a week ago regarding yet another lawsuit by yet a new, and third, lawyer retained by my former wife Jenny. I first learned of it through the media and I didn’t want to respond at all, but given the level of accusation after waiting a day I gave a brief response.
My question now though is how to respond given I am being summoned to the court room again on Monday. I have prayed on it, thought on it and asked the advice of friends.
Here is where I have settled:
I cannot do this anymore. In all life there comes a point wherein lines must be drawn in the way that we attempt to respond in ways that don’t invite more in the way of conflict and add more in the way of modeling Christ’s humility in giving in every instance. I’ll never get that mix right, none of us do, but I believe it’s what we are to pursue in all of our responses to the inevitable reality of conflict in our lives.
So here are a few thoughts that hit me:
One, in as much as you sign my paycheck and you have elected me to represent you in Washington, I think I owe you my thinking on this personal, but now public matter. More than at any time in my life, I believe I am subject to not just the laws of God, but the authority of my fellow man.
Two, I am going to get a lawyer to defend me on this case. I will instruct them not to fight back, to work to de-escalate and defuse and to look for measured justice and an end to controversy. At the time of the divorce I did not get a lawyer because I could not imagine standing in a court room with one in some adversarial form against the mother of our boys. Since then, and almost as clock work over the last four and one half years since the divorce, unfortunately there has been either the threat of lawsuit or actual lawsuit about every six months. In every instance I have either settled, represented myself or gotten two longtime friends to help me in responding. I have always tried to quiet the matter because at so many different levels I wanted to do anything to avoid conflict. I didn’t want to further hurt or embarrass the boys, Jenny, the people I had once represented…or even myself with more talk on my personal life. In fact more public conflict after the events of five years ago was the last thing in the world I wanted.
There was also the issue of money. Spending money getting lawyers to resolve differences, when I believed any two people sitting down could do the same, also broke with my belief on stewardship…or what some would call my frugal ways. But here we are and I am comfortable knowing I have tried near everything within my power to avoid lawyers and court – and in my belief that I will continue to work to avoid acrimony going forward. I am simply handing off the keys in dealing with this so that I can focus without further distraction on our boys and my work in Washington. Three, let’s recognize the degree to which what’s being done seems designed to embarrass me rather than change anything. As mentioned I never hired a lawyer at the time of the divorce which in practical terms means I just folded all the cards in giving Jenny what she wanted at that time. She wanted a certain financial number that I didn’t have, and so I gave her pieces of our family farm that my dad and mom assembled in the 1950’s and 60’s. They were obviously not “marital assets” normally divided in a divorce, but the only way I could manage to get to her number. She wanted full custody of the boys, I gave it. She wanted full control of their custodial accounts which were very significant in size, I gave it. I did these things for two reasons. One, because my good friend Cubby Culbertson had reminded me that it was all God’s – and if he wanted you to have more, you would…and if he wanted you to have less, you would have less. He accordingly strongly advised against spending money and time and controversy fighting over things that God ultimately controlled. It was good advice. I also did it because in that chapter of life I could not take any more controversy, and what Jenny had said at that time was that if she didn’t get those things we would go to court and just have another public spectacle. I found that idea haunting, and so I indeed folded all the cards and that brings us to today.
Jenny’s attorney’s newest summons asks that the visitation schedule be changed to limit my visitation with our youngest son Blake. The question is how do you change what does not exist? There is no visitation schedule. She has full custody. Over the last five years she has determined the visitation schedule and informed me at the beginning of this year that I would not be given one. I pleaded otherwise, pointing out that no boy wants to be put in the place of having to pick between their mother and dad.
This year with no schedule has certainly resulted in a lot of time apart from the boys, as for instance I was not able to spend a night with Bolton for 17 weeks this spring. The same holds true last year when they were not allowed to be with me during the five months of the campaign, save the election nights. The trump card has always been, “if you don’t like it, take me to court”, and for all the reasons described this has never been a place I felt comfortable going. The absence of schedule now simply results in strange emails, as for instance I got one two days ago from Jenny’s new lawyer advising me that to arrange any visit with Blake I should come through her. If I had normal parental rights why in the world would I be getting a note like this from an attorney when in that case our son wants nothing more than to go to the USC football game?
So here is my take away. To now suggest that we need to amend what does not exist strikes me as either pure theatre or a punitive restriction to further limit what has devolved to be very limited time with the boys. ...
But wait, there's much more!
Read on at IJ Review
