we ARE in the dark ages here and it will be interesting to see who votes against getting rid of these ridiculous laws. I actually can't believe these laws are still on the books.

Kudos to Kaine.

As for me, I grew up with parents whom both smoked like chimneys... and both parents and their peers had the effects and medical problems that smoking brings. Since I lived in California, I can't stand the smoke any more and I'm sure I have become even more sensitive if not actually alergic as well....

Excuse me?  "Some lawmakers believe the man should have the option of marrying" the woman he sexually abused?  Is that supposed to be a really sick joke or something?  Which lawmakers are we talking about here? The usual suspects like Bob Marshall? Ken Cuccinelli? Bill Howell?  Whoever these "lawmakers" (using the term loosely) are, they need to be booted out of office at the next possible opportunity.  What a disgrace.

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about who supports this.  It may actually be some archaic law left over from the 1700s.  All states have these bizarre anachronisms on the books that nobody actually follows.

But its origin goes back to the Old Testament. I'd have to look for the actual citation, but it would probably be Leviticus or Deuteronomy.  

It goes back to a time when women were seen as property and the main concern was to give restitution to the girl's father because once his daughter was no longer a virgin, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to marry her off.  It was all about men's property rights.

Furthermore, I'm amazed that a rape victim would be required to take a lie detector test.  That too goes back to a time when society blamed the victim in rape cases.  

These laws need to be changed.  I'd be interested in knowing which lawmakers opposed fixing them.

§ 18.2-66. Effect of subsequent marriage to child over fourteen years of age.

If the carnal knowledge is with the consent of the child and such child is fourteen years of age or older, the subsequent marriage of the parties may be pleaded to any indictment found against the accused. The court, upon proof of such marriage, and that the parties are living together as husband and wife, and that the accused has properly provided for, supported, and maintained and is at the time properly providing, supporting and maintaining the spouse and the issue of such marriage, if any, shall continue the case from time to time and from term to term, until the spouse reaches the age of sixteen years. Thereupon the court shall dismiss the indictment already found against the accused for the aforesaid offense. However, if the accused deserts such spouse before the spouse reaches the age of sixteen without just cause, any indictment found against the accused for such offense shall be tried without regard to the number of times the case has been continued, and whether such continuance is entered upon the order book.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-45; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15, 606; 1981, c. 397; 1993, c. 418.)

I'm a marriage celebrant and I've never seen a case like this.  I have no idea whether there have been any judges in recent memory who've allowed a 14 year old to marry in Virginia, but there you have it.  I have heard of a couple of cases of girls under 18 being given permission to marry by their parents.  In one case in Fairfax County a couple of years ago the parents of a 16 or 17 year old girl appeared with her and her fiance at the court, filled out the application for their daughter for a marriage license, got one issued, and proceeded to marry her off to her cousin.  It was an immigrant Arab family and they thought it was perfectly acceptable to put the kid in an arranged marriage.  The clerk neglected to check the age of the girl, there was no parental consent signed, and the kid wasn't asked if she wanted to get married - she didn't.  The marriage was later annulled.  

GOVERNOR KAINE ANNOUNCES LEGISLATION TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM CREDIT FRAUD

~ Includes proposal to require notification when data is compromised ~

RICHMOND - Governor Timothy M. Kaine today announced legislative proposals aimed at protecting Virginia consumers from identity theft and credit fraud that he will submit for consideration by the 2008 General Assembly. The Governor made the announcement with members of the AARP today at the organization's state headquarters in Richmond.

"Everyone is aware of the importance of protecting our personal information, and almost all of us know someone who has been the victim of identity theft or credit card fraud," Governor Kaine said. "That is why I established a working group last year and charged it with recommending steps we could take to protect our citizens. These proposed legislative actions reflect those recommendations."

The 26-member working group, established by executive directive in January 2007, was chaired by Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry Robert S. Bloxom. Vice Chairman was Secretary of Technology Aneesh P. Chopra. The group included members of the General Assembly, business leaders and consumer advocates.

"While there is no single solution to the many challenges we face in this area, I believe these proposals strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the Commonwealth's citizens and the legitimate interests of the business community." Governor Kaine said.

Breach notification
Virginians have the right to know when important personal information has been released to the public or otherwise compromised. Governor Kaine's proposal would enact a breach notification standard, which would apply to state government.

Governor Kaine recommends that breach be defined as the unauthorized acquisition and access of unencrypted or unredacted personally identifying information from a variety of data forms, including paper records. The law would require companies to notify consumers in the event that a data breach is experienced. State law already defines personal information that would constitute a breach as a resident's name in combination with one or more of the following: Social Security number; driver's license number; account number or credit card number in combination with any security code, access code or password that would permit access to a resident's financial account.

The Governor's proposal provides an exemption from the requirement to notify when a company can determine that there is no reasonable risk of harm occurring from the unauthorized disclosure of personal identifying information. It also provides for written notification or notification by e-mail or telephone.

Credit report freeze
Virginians should have the ability to put a freeze on their credit reports until any identity theft or fraud issues are resolved.  Governor Kaine's recommendation would make this protection available to all consumers and allow the placement of the freeze by standard mail, electronically or by telephone.

"As identity theft becomes more and more common, we must give our citizens tools to protect themselves from the possibility of continued damage that an open credit line allows," Governor Kaine said.  "This legislation will give Virginian's greater control over access to their credit."

The three credit agencies -- Experian, Transunion and Equifax -- last year volunteered to allow credit report freezes. Building upon their move, the proposed legislation would allow the credit reporting agencies to charge a reasonable fee of $5, to each agency, for placing and removing a freeze, with no charge to temporarily lift one.  The service would be free to victims of identity theft.  The freeze would stay in effect until lifted by the consumer.

Exemptions from the credit report freeze would be granted to entities such as those with active business relationships with the consumer, law enforcement, insurance brokers, debt collections agencies and other with legitimate needs to carry out their duties.  Credit reporting agencies would be required to provide the fastest means possible to lift or remove a freeze by including a "quick thaw" provision by September 1, 2008.

The Governor's proposal provides an exemption from the requirement to notify when a company can determine that there is no reasonable risk of harm occurring from the unauthorized disclosure of personal identifying information.

I do not think Kaine's ascending to the Vice Presidency would leave a power vacuum in VA. On the contrary, such a play would simply electrify dems statewide improving chances for any gubernatorial nominee. Kaine can do more good as a VP. Can anyone convince me otherwise?