Rhode Island legalizes same-sex marriage

PROVIDENCE, R.I. –  Rhode Island on Thursday became the nation's 10th state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, as a 16-year effort to extend marriage rights in this heavily Catholic state ended with the triumphant cheers of hundreds of gays, lesbians, their families and friends.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee signed the bill into law on the Statehouse steps Thursday evening following a final 56-15 vote in the House. The first weddings will take place Aug. 1, when the law takes effect.

"It's a day we knew would come, but it seemed so far away for so many years," said Rep. Frank Ferri, D-Warwick, who is gay and was elected to the House after years as a gay marriage advocate. "So many people worked so hard for this day."

The day was bittersweet for Deborah Tevyaw, whose wife, state corrections officer Pat Baker, succumbed to lung cancer two years ago. Months before she died, Baker, relying on an oxygen tank, angrily told lawmakers that it was unfair that Tevyaw wasn't considered her wife in Rhode Island despite their marriage in Massachusetts.

"I'm ecstatic, but sad she's not here to see this," Tevyaw said. "I'm sure she's watching, but she's not here next to me. Before she died, she told me, `I started this, and now I'm leaving it in your hands.' We worked hard for this. There were petitions, door knocking, phone calls. I think people decided, `just let people be happy."'

Once consigned to the political fringe, gay marriage advocates succeeded this year thanks to a sprawling lobbying effort that included support from organized labor leaders, religious clergy, leaders including Chafee and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and hundreds of volunteers. Their efforts overcame the opposition of the Roman Catholic church and lawmakers including Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, who voted no but allowed the issue to come to a vote anyway.

"Political power doesn't always start at the Statehouse," said Dawn Euer, deputy campaign director at Rhode Islanders United for Marriage.

Supporters framed the issue as one of civil rights, arguing in daylong legislative hearings that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and protections given to opposite-sex married couples. The Catholic Church was the most significant opponent, with Bishop Thomas Tobin urging lawmakers to defeat what he called an "immoral and unnecessary" change to traditional marriage law.

The Rhode Island legislation states that religious institutions may set their own rules regarding who is eligible to marry within the faith and specifies that no religious leader is obligated to officiate at any marriage ceremony and no religious group is required to provide facilities or services related to a gay marriage.

While ministers already cannot be forced to marry anyone, the exemption helped assuage concerns from some lawmakers that clergy could face lawsuits for abiding by their religious convictions.

Under the new law, civil unions will no longer be available to same-sex couples as of July 1, though the state would continue to recognize existing civil unions. Lawmakers approved civil unions two years ago, though few couples have sought them.

Delaware could be the next state to approve gay marriage. Legislation legalizing same-sex marriage narrowly passed the Delaware House on Tuesday and now awaits a vote in the state Senate.

View the original article here

Dr. Manny: Marriage equality has health benefits for all

• 

As a practicing physician for the past 30 years, I know one fact to be true: Marriage benefits the family.

I have worked in very busy medical centers, and I have seen numerous patients take on debilitating health problems by themselves.  Many times, their isolation makes things much more difficult.  

To have a support system through marriage means the world when you’re sick.  It means you have someone to listen to your problems, to offer advice; and ultimately, to be your health advocate.

If we look at some of the health benefits of marriage, we find that married individuals recover better after surgery, are less likely to have heart attacks, and are more likely to live longer and be healthier overall.  Also, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that married gay and lesbian couples are much more likely to have better mental health than their unwed counterparts.

And marriage isn’t only valuable for the individuals involved, as its health benefits extend to the rest of the family.  Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics said children thrive when they have two married parents who love them and can provide them with a nurturing environment, irrespective of the parents’ sexual orientation.

In my personal specialty, I see the power of marriage in bringing new life into this world.  I have delivered babies for heterosexual couples, as well as babies for many lesbian couples.  Regardless of a couple’s sexual orientation, the beauty of a newborn child is equally astounding to everyone.

So my message to the Supreme Court, as they deliberate on how to move forward on Proposition 8, is that marriage equality could be quite healthy for our society.  Isolation and inequality are detrimental to our health, ultimately bringing about depression, sadness and anxiety.

I know nobody listens to a practicing doctor like myself anymore, especially since we live in a lawyer’s world, but the facts are the facts.  Marriage is healthy for everyone, especially for our children. It is time we make the world a more equal and joyful place.

Dr. Manny Alvarez

View the original article here

Justices raise doubt about Defense of Marriage Act- DR. ABLOW: Gov’t shouldn't sanction marriages

• 

• • 

    Will Supreme Court issue ruling on same-sex marriage?

  • 

    Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Prop 8

  • 

    No clear ruling expected on gay marriage?

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will tackle a constitutional challenge to the law that prevents legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits generally available to straight married couples, the second of back-to-back gay marriage cases before the court this week. 

The justices will consider a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits, as part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The DOMA arguments follow a landmark hearing on California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, during which several Supreme Court justices indicated they might lean toward issuing a narrow ruling. 

Lower federal courts have struck down the DOMA measure, and now the justices, in nearly two hours of scheduled argument, will consider whether to follow suit.

Marital status is relevant in more than 1,100 federal laws that include estate taxes, Social Security survivor benefits and health benefits for federal employees. Lawsuits around the country have led four federal district courts and two appeals courts to strike down the law's Section 3, which defines marriage.

 In 2011, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.

The justices chose for their review the case of Edith Windsor, 83, of New York, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.

Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 in Canada after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.

There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been zero.

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.

Like the Proposition 8 case from California, Windsor's lawsuit could falter on a legal technicality without a definitive ruling from the high court.

The House Republicans, the Obama administration and a lawyer appointed by the court especially to argue the issue were to spend the first 50 minutes Wednesday discussing whether the House Republican leadership can defend the law in court because the administration decided not to, and whether the administration forfeited its right to participate in the case because it changed its position and now argues that the provision is unconstitutional.

If the Supreme Court finds that it does not have the authority to hear the case, Windsor probably would still get her refund because she won in the lower courts. But there would be no definitive decision about the law from the nation's highest court, and it would remain on the books.

On Tuesday, the justices weighed a fundamental issue: Does the Constitution require that people be allowed to marry whom they choose, regardless of either partner's gender?

If the justices choose to rule broadly, they could overturn Prop 8 and in doing so invalidate every other restriction on gay marriage in the country. 

But the justices suggested Tuesday they could decide the case without issuing a ruling that ripples through all 50 states.

Several justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, raised doubts that the case was properly before them. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potentially decisive vote on a closely divided court, suggested that the court could dismiss the case with no ruling at all.

Such an outcome would almost certainly allow gay marriages to resume in California but would have no impact elsewhere. 

Click to listen to the Supreme Court arguments in the Prop 8 case. 

Kennedy said he feared the court would go into "uncharted waters" if it embraced arguments advanced by gay marriage supporters. But lawyer Theodore Olson, representing two same-sex couples, said that the court similarly ventured into the unknown in 1967 when it struck down bans on interracial marriage in 16 states. 

Kennedy challenged the accuracy of that comment by noting that other countries had had interracial marriages for hundreds of years. 

There was no majority apparent for any particular outcome and many doubts expressed about the arguments advanced by lawyers for the opponents of gay marriage in California, by the supporters and by the Obama administration, which is in favor of same-sex marriage rights. 

Chief Justice John Roberts told Olson that it seemed supporters of gay marriage were trying to change the meaning of the word "marriage" by including same-sex couples. 

Lawyers representing supporters of the California ban known as Proposition 8 argued that the court should not override the democratic process and impose a judicial solution that would redefine marriage in the some 40 states that do not allow same-sex couples to wed.

Americans as a whole are divided on the issue. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. 

That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it. 

Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling. 

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related Interactive

Fox News Poll: Many More Favor Gay Marriage, up from 2003

View the original article here

SUPREME COURT HINT: Justices May Issue Narrow Ruling on Gay Marriage

• 

• • 

    Is gay marriage a state or federal issue?

  • 

    Political Insiders 3/25/13

  • 

    Battle over gay marriage heats up as issue heads to SCOTUS

The national gay marriage debate has reached the Supreme Court, as the justices prepare to consider two cases which have the potential to redefine marriage on a national level.

On Tuesday the court will take up California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, and on Wednesday the Defense of Marriage Act, a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.

The California case could have sweeping implications for the states. The judges could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. 

Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California's ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states. 

Lawyers representing one lesbian and one gay couple from California will try to persuade the nine Supreme Court justices to strike down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages and to declare that gay couples can marry nationwide.

Lawyers representing supporters of the California ban known as Proposition 8 will argue that the court should not override the democratic process and impose a judicial solution that would redefine marriage in the some 40 states that do not allow same-sex couples to wed.

The case before the high court came together four years ago when the two couples agreed to be the named plaintiffs and become the public faces of a well-funded, high-profile effort to challenge Proposition 8 in the courts.

The fight began in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials to issue marriage licenses. Six months later, the state Supreme Court invalidated the same-sex unions. Less than four years later, however, the same state court overturned California's prohibition on same-sex unions. 

Then, in the same election that put President Obama in the White House in 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, undoing the court ruling and defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The ballot measure halted same-sex unions in California. Roughly 18,000 couples were wed in the nearly five months that same-sex marriage was legal and those marriages remain valid in California.

The high-profile case has brought together two one-time Supreme Court opponents. Republican Theodore Olson and Democrat David Boies are leading the legal team representing the same-sex couples.

 They argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Opposing them is Charles Cooper, Olson's onetime colleague at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

The arguments come at a time of changing views on the issue. Support for gay marriage is becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue is causing a sharp divide among Republicans.

Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments. 

The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it. 

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told "Fox News Sunday" that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking "for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state." 

Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that's not likely, he said the court should let the states decide. 

Bauer said people are only changing their minds on the issue "because there's been a full-court blitz ... by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a man and a woman." 

However Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a "conservative legal argument." 

"They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people," she told "Fox News Sunday." "There's also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage."

Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage -- and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions -- have in recent months and years shifted course. 

President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit. 

But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned.  And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay. 

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly. 

"They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a "huge mistake" that would "undermine respect for the judiciary." 

Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. 

That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it. 

Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling. 

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related Interactive

Fox News Poll: Many More Favor Gay Marriage, up from 2003

View the original article here

Gay Marriage Reaches High Court

• 

  March 23, 2013: Those hoping to get a seat for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage line up early outside the court in Washington.AP

The front-lines of the gay marriage debate move this week to the Supreme Court, as it considers two cases which have the potential to redefine marriage on a national level. 

The arguments come at a time of changing views, with support for gay marriage becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue causing a sharp divide among Republicans. 

The first case the court will take up, on Tuesday, is California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The court on Wednesday weighs the Defense of Marriage Act, considering a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits. 

It is the California case, though, that could have sweeping implications for the states. The judges could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California's ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states. 

Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments. The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it. 

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told "Fox News Sunday" that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking "for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state." 

Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that's not likely, he said the court should let the states decide. Bauer said people are only changing their minds on the issue "because there's been a full-court blitz ... by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a man and a woman." 

But Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a "conservative legal argument." 

"They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people," she told "Fox News Sunday." 

"There's also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage." 

SUMMARY

The Stats on Gay Marriage

Number of states with constitutional amendments banning gay marriage: 31

Number of states where gay marriage is legal: Nine (plus the District of Columbia) 

Public opinion: 49 percent support gay marriage, 46 percent oppose, according to Fox News polling

Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage -- and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions -- have in recent months and years shifted course. President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit. 

But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned. One of the lead lawyers arguing against Prop 8, Ted Olson, also is a prominent conservative who was solicitor general under George W. Bush. And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay. 

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly. 

"They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a "huge mistake" that would "undermine respect for the judiciary." 

Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it. 

Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling. 

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. 

But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May. 

The case being considered Tuesday concerns the constitutional ban on gay marriage that California voters adopted in 2008. One key question before the court is whether the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals. 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals previously struck down Prop 8, without making any sweeping pronouncements. The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it. 

The other issue the high court will take on involves the central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. 

Supreme Court rulings are expected in June. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related Stories

Fox News Poll: 49 Percent Favor Gay Marriage, up from 32 Percent in 2003

View the original article here

Same-sex marriage linked to longer lives

Since the advent of same-sex marriage in Denmark, married gay men and women have seen their death rates drop, a new study finds.

The research fits well with other studies that have linked health and marriage among opposite-sex couples. Men in same-sex couples now have lower mortality rates than unmarried or divorced men, with only men in opposite-sex marriages living longer.

"Among men in Denmark, it is more dangerous to be unmarried or divorced than to be married to another man," said study researcher Martin Frisch of the Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen and the Center for Sexology Research of Aalborg University.

Tracking health

Denmark was the first nation in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, doing so in 1989. That length of time provides a unique advantage for researchers looking at the effects of legalized marriage, Frisch told LiveScience.

In the United States, same-sex marriage is now legal in the District of Columbia and nine states (Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington). The federal government does not recognize these unions.

Frisch and his colleagues used data from the country's Civil Registration System, which is used to issue citizens identification numbers (similar to Social Security numbers) and contains basic demographic information, including marital status and death dates. This database gave them information on 6.5 million Danes between 1982 and 2011.

During the study period, about 1.7 million of the people in the registry died, allowing the researchers to calculate mortality rates for the 29-year period. Controlling for education, income, city and population density, the researchers found that marriage made a difference.

Men and women in opposite-sex marriages had the lowest mortality rates of any other group in the study, including people who were widowed, divorced or unmarried. Female widows and divorcees were about 1.4 and 1.6 times more likely to die during the study period than those who were married to a man, respectively, and mortality rates for unmarried women rose slightly between 1982 and 2011, from 1.5 to 1.7 times more likely to die than married women.

Male widowers were 1.4 times more likely to die than men in opposite-sex marriages as of 2011, a slight increase from 1.2 in 1982. Men who were divorced also saw their chance of mortality go up over the study period, from 1.3 to 1.7 times more likely to die than married men. For unmarried men, the same numbers rose from 1.2 to 1.7 between 1982 and 2011.

Same-sex marriage and survival

Starting in 1989, when same-sex marriage was introduced, mortality rates among gays and lesbians who got married have declined. As of 2011, men in same-sex marriages were only 1.4 times more likely to die during the study period than men in opposite-sex marriages, a number lower than unmarried or divorced men. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

Part of the mortality drop likely has to do with the development of antiretroviral therapies to treat HIV and AIDS, Fisch said. The syndrome affects gay men disproportionately, but drug therapies have been available since 1995 and 1996. As a result, gay men went from the group with the highest mortality rates to the group with the second-lowest, behind only men married to women.

Married lesbians also saw their mortality rates decline between 1989 and 2011, Frisch said, but not as dramatically.

"Since the year 2000, same-sex married Danish lesbians have had mortality rates that are almost 90 percent higher than opposite-sex women in Denmark," he said. Their mortality rates may even be increasing, he added.

Based on data about causes of death, the researchers think that an increased suicide risk among Danish lesbians explains a large part of their mortality lag. Married lesbians were more than six times more likely to commit suicide than married straight women. They were also at a 60 percent increased risk of death from cancer, for reasons not yet understood.

On one hand, the study reveals that mortality rates are not necessarily elevated in gay men, despite many studies finding disproportionate physical and mental health struggles among this group (often associated with social stigma). Marriage may protect against the societal challenges of being gay, or healthier gay men may be more likely to enter marriages.

On the other hand, Frisch said, the data suggest that men and women who are gay still struggle more than their straight counterparts. Both same-sex-married men and women had elevated suicide rates over straight-married couples, he said.

"It is important now to identify those factors that make more homosexuals than heterosexuals vulnerable to life's challenges to such an extent that suicide may appear to be the only way out," Frisch said.

The researchers report their findings online March 11 in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

View the original article here

Giuliana Rancic puts marriage first, baby second

Giuliana Rancic says she puts her marriage over motherhood.

Rancic, who welcomed son Edward Duke via surrogate last August, told US Weekly that she and her husband Bill Rancic make their relationship a priority, even with the “cutest baby ever” in the house.

"We're husband and wife, but we're also best friends, and it's funny because a lot of people, when they have kids, they put the baby first, and the marriage second," the 37-year-old breast-cancer survivor told the magazine. "That works for some people. For us, I find, we put our marriage first and our child second, because the best thing we can do for him is have a strong marriage."

Click for more from Us Weekly.

View the original article here

Former Sen. Domenici admits having son outside marriage with colleague’s daughter

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. –  Former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico is acknowledging he fathered a son outside his marriage three decades ago.

Statements released by the Republican and the son's mother, Michelle Laxalt, of Alexandria, Va., identify Domenici as the father of Las Vegas lawyer Adam Paul Laxalt, The Albuquerque Journal reported Wednesday.

"I deeply regret this and am very sorry for my behavior," Domenici, 80, said in his statement. "I hope New Mexicans will view that my accomplishments for my beloved state outweigh my personal transgression."

Michelle Laxalt's statement said she and Domenici had agreed to keep his fatherhood secret because he and her father, ex-Nevada Gov. Paul Laxalt, were senators.

"One night's mistake led to pregnancy more than 30 years ago," Michelle Laxalt said in her statement, adding that she chose to raise her son as a single parent.

Both Domenici and Michelle Laxalt indicated in their statements that were disclosing his fatherhood because they thought somebody might soon attempt to make it public, with her statement saying she thought someone would shop it to the media to smear Domenici.

In his statement, Domenici said he was sorry that he caused hurt and disappointment for his wife and other family members. Domenici is the father of eight children with his wife, Nancy. He said he disclosed the situation to his family several months ago.

"I have apologized as best as I can to my wife, and we have worked together to strengthen our relationship," Domenici said.

Domenici told the Journal his son participated in the drafting of his statement. But it was unclear if the two had a prior relationship.

Laxalt's statement said her interaction with Domenici "consisted of telling him my decision, asking that he avail himself for health-related purposes, and asking that he agree that this remain private between the two of us."

Reached at his Washington home Wednesday morning, Domenici told The Associated Press he had nothing more to say.

Domenici served six terms, making him the longest-serving senator in New Mexico's history. He was known for his unflagging support of the state's national laboratories and military installations. In Washington, he became a power broker for his work on the federal budget and energy policy. He also was an advocate for insurance coverage for mental health.

Domenici declined to seek a seventh Senate term in 2008, saying he had been diagnosed with an incurable brain disorder. 

The website for Adam Laxalt's law firm, Lewis and Roca, said he is a former U.S. Navy officer and lawyer who served in Iraq. He also worked for then-Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and as a special assistant to an undersecretary of state, according to the website.

View the original article here