I'm Starting to Think Impeachment

Marc Fisher breaks the story that Tim Kaine has started a SEX REGISTRY in Virginia. 

This is not a joke.

Men are REQUIRED to register with it when they have sex with any woman that they are not married to.

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?!

What's the point of this?  As Marc writes:

"If you don't let the state know ahead of any dispute over whose kid it is, or ahead of any effort by the mother or anyone else to put the baby up for adoption, Virginia will assume that you don't exist. That's right, whereas once the authorities might have made an effort to find the father before putting a child up for adoption, the existence of the Putative Father Registry means the state now washes its hands of that obligation. If you haven't registered your sexual encounter in Richmond, you are outta luck."

So if you have sex with a woman and she produces a baby- unless you register that sexual encounter she can put the baby up for ADOPTION without even informing you the baby exists.

I understand the General Assembly had to pass this- but the Governor signed it into law.  With all the other insane stuff he has signed into law (like Abuser Fees), I am starting to think it is time to discuss impeachment.   If you can't be impeached for creating a SEX REGISTRY what can you be impeached for?

Comments

[Larry Sabato's Hairpiece]

Eagerly awaiting Ian Jordan's inevitable post trashing Ben for ever even thinking of speaking ill of Governor Spooky Eyebrow.

[Tatum]

This couldn't have been a bad decision. He considers himself a "community activist" of Honduras. So we know he's qualified.

So says The Great and Wonderful O.

[Sam]

Um, you do realize that if you step forward and claim fatherhood when the girl's pregnant or after giving birth but before putting up for adoption, you retain your rights without the registry, right?

All this does is mean that men who are completely absent, the one night stands who disappear, or the men who refuse to acknowledge their child are no longer able to block adoption because they aren't there to allow it.

This is one of the biggest problem in adoptions in the US today, and frankly, I have trouble saying that fathers who "Bang and run" or simply refuse to acknowledge fatherhood deserve the right to prevent an adoption.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Sam, how can people be expected to keep up with every woman they have had sex with? This allows a woman you may not see all the time to not tell you she is pregnant and then you have no rights as a parent after the child is born if she doesn't want you to. You could have kids going around and no one would ever inform you they exist.

That's insane.

[brimur]

Wow Ben, you have really shown your ignorance on a really important issue. Just wow.

[Larry Sabato's Hairpiece]

Because I did not sign up, I have tons of little toupees and hair extensions running around, but I have no rights! Those floozy wigs I was with have really screwed me royally!

[Ian Jordan]

Here you go Hairpiece. Ben, you're a goddamned idiot, and anyone who defends you on this one is too.

Your framing that this is Tim Kaine's bidding is ridiculous, anyone with a brain who read that story clearly can understand that.

Do you think people are really that stupid? In NO WAY does it say you are REQUIRED to register. You blind?

This is another example of you thinking people are morons and cannot read for themselves...TO REVIEW: THIS IS NOT GOVERNOR KAINE'S BRAINCHILD (as the little shit Ben would have you believe), YOU ARE NOT required TO REGISTER AT ALL (as the little shit Ben purposefully misconstrues).

All you gotta do folks is READ. So now I ask you been, what the fuck are YOU talking about.

[TomPaine]

Ben:

Seek help before it is too late

Ben, It's called responsible sex. Can you imagine how terrible it must be for a family to adopt a child, only to discover that "daddy dearest" pops up and claims the child?

This registry could make that worse. If they aren't required to notify the father someone could adopt a child and then deal with a bunch of court challenges from a father who later found out he had a child.

Terrible idea.

[Sam]

Sam, how can people be expected to keep up with every woman they have had sex with? This allows a woman you may not see all the time to not tell you she is pregnant and then you have no rights as a parent after the child is born if she doesn't want you to. You could have kids going around and no one would ever inform you they exist.

That's insane.

Posted by: Not Larry Sabato | September 02, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Uh.... I don't know how many women you're having sex with, but I would say most men aren't having SO MUCH casual sex they can't keep up with all their partners for at least nine months after the sex. If that's not the case, then some might also begin questioning one's fitness to be a good father to begin with....

[Not Larry Sabato]

Sam, you know there is a law against following up with women unsolicited after sex for nine months.

It's called stalking.

Ben, generally you are supposed to call after going to bed with a woman. If they are accusing you of stalking, you may not be playing your cards right.

"Uh.... I don't know how many women you're having sex with[...]"

Dude. Too easy.

[brimur]

This has inspired me to write my first blog post in eons. http://brimur.wordpress.com/

[Pete in Williamsburg]

Ben,

This is paternity law 101 stuff. Any male is allowed to bring a good faith paternity petition if he thinks a woman is carrying his child. Burden is on him to provide evidence to move the claim forward. To say this is a sex registry is the most tortured stretch of illogic I've seen since the Palin pick. Come back, Ben, we miss you.

[marty nohe]

Ben-

With due respect, I have to agree with a lot of your commenters here. This bill is a very valuable tool in taking children out of the foster care system and placing them in permanent, loving homes. Previously, the rule was that if a biological mother's parental rights were terminated (either by court order after determining that she was unfit to responsibly care for her child or through a voluntary entrustment in which the mother gives up her rights) and the biological father has never been involved in the child's life or worse yet, his identity is unknown, the courts were required to go through an arduous process to provide an opportunity for the father to come forward and take custody of the child. That process consisted primarily of running ads in the public notice section of a newspaper with circulation in the jurisdiction in which the child lives (even if there is no reason to believe that the father lives anywhere near that community) notifying the absent father of his rights. The ad had to meet a very specific form, had to be run a number of times and had to be available over a very long period of time. This cost the courts money, but more importantly, it cost families precious time. It generally added three months to the process.

On top of all of this, I am told by several adoption attorneys that they know of no cases in which any biological father has come forward through this process.

In the new system, a man who is determined to be an absentee father gives up his parental rights upon demonstrating his unfitness by choosing not to affirmatively acknowledge that he had sex with their mother. Meanwhile, if the mother wants to bring a paternity case against her child's father, her rights to do so are protected irrespective of whether or not the father registered their intimate encounter.

It may be awkward, but this law protects little kids from getting caught up in a protracted legal process that only protects an absentee father, when the courts' real focus should be on making sure that the child is able to live in a safe and stable environment.

Thanks-
Marty

[Not Larry Sabato]

I think people are making some good points- but no points that are good enough to justify having a state registry for sexual activity.

Marty, An order of publication adds about 75 days to the process. That really isn't too long. The other comments you've made, however, are completely valid. Mom can claim whomever she wants as the dad, and an order of publication is done on that name. Often, and this will come as a surprise to none of you, mom's wrong. Then, real dad pops up, and there are problems with the adoption. It's gotten so that some jurisdctions do a publication for unknown dad in addition to the name(s) that mom gives just to cover the bases. Guys, if you want to avoid the stalking charges, read the classified sections of ALL newspapers in the US (assuming that domestic law is similar in all 50 states, a bad assumption) every day until 18 years passed the day you stopped having sex with anyone. A bit easier would be to wear a condom. Better yet, why not just get the little operation.

[Not Harry F. Byrd, Sr.]

This entire bill has me scratching my head. First, the government has no business knowing who has had sex with who unless a crime or a child results. Creating a sex registry on the premise that something might happen smells of Big Brother.

It seems to me that the law puts the onus of notification on the wrong party - the putative father. How is a father supposed to know that an encounter resulted in a baby unless the mother tells him?

Likewise, it's hard to call someone an "absentee father" if the mother has never told him about the baby?

The reality is probably that the bulk of fathers where the mother doesn't notify them are probably lower income men. If such fathers had significant income or assets, the mother would probably know that, the mother could see meaningful child support that was going to be paid, and the child would be much less likely to have to be put up for adoption in the first place.

In other words, this law appears to try to make it easier for the Commonwealth to take children and quickly forfeit the rights of men with little income. If this involved rich people, I bet it would have never been passed.

I'm all for facilitating adoptions, but if the state doesn't have the money to notify fathers then **why not properly fund the agencies?**

The GOP would be all over properly funding agencies that facilitate adoptions. Then again, maybe they hate all government programs.

[Hon. Jewington Analplay]

Let me see if I have this right:

You advocate that the Legislature initiate impeachment against the Governor for signing into law a bill that the Legislature itself passed?

Lately I can't tell if you've become more insane, or stupid, or just plain lazy. Here we are 60 days out from an election, and this "blog" has yet to present an analysis of a single House district, Senate or Presidential election in Virginia.

And as for scandal, you still haven't moved past the first stage of mourning Leslie to get back to any real reporting. Let the anger go, move on.

[James Young]

What was that about Conservative interest in everyone's bedrooms?

I suppose the registry only applies for those who engage in more "conventional" activities therein?

Didn't Jay O'Brien come up with this idiotic idea?

[NJU]

So does Joey have to register for being Ben's "friend with benefits" as well?

Let's take a look at the legislative history of this law that has your shorts in a knot, Bennie.

First the bill was SB 534 introdiced by that great representative of NOVA's progressive thought: Senator Jay O'Brien (R-Fairfax). No surprise there. But wait there's more!

It passed both houses with a total of only 3 negative votes (Abbitt, Hull & R.L. Ware--on final passage. All 3 had voted for the bill in earlier forms).

So if you're going around trying to "impeach" somone about this (on some grounds or other--apparently without regard to Constitutional law). Don't you think you should start with the entire membership of the General Assembly? They all voted for this numerous times.

Bennie, it looks like you are more thatn a little overwrought about this. So don't you think it would be a good idea for you to take a long draught of Prozac and calm down?