What Could Keep Gay Marriage Bill From Becoming Law

Taking an idea all the way from just a thought in someone's mind to codified law has always been tough in this country. Was meant to be that way since 1789 and will continue to be that way in the future. Part of the checks and balances system encourages due diligence be done and seeks to limit compulsive or abusive law making. The system does this by slowing down the process of turning an idea into a law.

But in DC its extra tough and extra slow. Not only do we have to conduct the regular steps of legislation; shepherd through council committees, subcommittees and then vote as a whole Council, then vote again two weeks later as a whole Council, then get a signature by the mayor.

But then there's Congress. If you ever want to be reminded that we are --at times-- treated like a ward of the state, here you go. Our laws have to be presented to special subcommittees in the House and Senate of the United States. And by proxy they are subject to review by the entire U.S. Congress. At this point, if a review occurs and no action is taken by Congress after 30 days, the bill becomes a law. No vote is needed.

However, the House and Senate can pass a Joint Resolution striking the bill down. A Joint Resolution is voted on like a bill, it has to pass with a simple majority in each chamber. Then, the President has to sign off on the Joint Resolution. At that point, the DC bill, which was almost a law, would be no more. It would have to go through the same process again and be resubmitted to Congress.

Even the threat of Congressional veto means that some ideas won't ever be put to paper as bills. For example, many local urban planner-thinkers like to suggest scraping our building height limit in certain parts of the city. I also think that's a great idea. And they're right, its a city municipal code and can be changed by the DC Council. Why not. Let's build skyscrapers in Tenleytown. Not likely, but let's say it happened next month; DC Council passes a bill eliminating height restrictions and Fenty signs off on it. There's no way, just none, that Congress would leave this bill alone. It would be killed immediately after review. So, the idea never gets pass the pie-in-the-sky phase. We know its a lost cause idea. Cool to talk about, but not possible right now.

But the gay marriage bill is different. We wouldn't be the first to allow marriage. We'd follow Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa and New Hampshire. And Congress had already set this up as a state and local issue with the somewhat ridiculous Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996. So, here we are with a local decision. Passed twice by our local council and then signed by the local mayor. And we're talking about a basic right to participate in a simple, but important institution. A right available to about 90% of adults in this country. But not to everyone in every state.

To Congress, I say we decided yes, so let us be. To DC, I say let the rice throwing begin.

New (Clearer?) Rules for Bloggers and Their Reviews

The Federal Trade Commission has cleared up some rules regarding bloggers and reviews of products or services. Basically, if you blog and review a service or retail product AND get paid by producer of the service or product specifically for the review, you must disclose that fact.

The FTC news release can be found here.

And a New York Times explanation of the ruling is also helpful.

Luckily it appears that if there is a violation, the enforcement would be focused on the producer, not the blogger or other poster in question. Seems like a fairly ethical rule that's easy to follow: If someone pays you to promote a product, that's an ADVERTISEMENT, not a review. And should be labeled as such. I've never been paid for anything on this blog. And there are no ads, not even Google Ads. hat may change one day, but not right now. I do like to promote places I like, especially if they serve good vegan food or have great service, etc. But no one's offered me free food as payment just yet... (hint, hint!)

Happy Constitution Day!

"We the People" is still relevant 221 years after 39 delegates from 12 states signed the Constitution, helping to create the supreme law of the land. The Constitution survives today within its original structure, albeit with many important and crucial changes via amendments. The three branches often struggle with defining its meaning, enforcing its statues and interpreting modern conventions against such a basic, but complex document. Dozens of other constitutions from around the world are modeled after ours.

Today, remember not only the sacrifice that went onto creating the Constitution, but the sacrifice of those who continue to test and define the document each day. The real American heroes are those who challenge convention and law in an effort to make the Constitution real and fulfill its full potential.

Try these activities out sometime this week:

*Go see it! One of the original copies on permanent view at the National Archives
*Stroll through Constitution Gardens on the Mall (near Vietnam Veterans Memorial)
*Visit the DC resting places of two of the signers; Abraham Baldwin @ Rock Creek Cemetery and Elbridge Gerry @ Congressional Cemetery
*Read the thing! It's short and you can get a wallet sized copy here
*Check out the National Constitution Center; its in Phila, but he website is a great resource as well
*Tell someone who doesn't know about our lack of real Congressional representation

Drinking on Metro

Last week BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) came up with a weird idea to combat people breaking its no eat/drink rule: sippy cups. The San Francisco area subway and transit company knows that heaps of riders break the no eating and drinking on the train rule daily. Instead of additional enforcement or a rule change, BART decided to try and convince riders to use a certain kind of coffee mug; essentially a sippy cup with a fail safe auto clasp, or "dead man's trigger." You have to hold the button down with a thumb to drink. Riders and bloggers bristled, calling the idea "dumb" and "worthless." At the press conference, the BART representative intentionally dropped the mug for effect--and spilled coffee all over the floor... whoops.

I often wonder if Metro will get rid of the rule. I seriously doubt it. Washington in general and WMATA in particular are sticklers for rules, even if some are outdated. I know, I know, Metro is so clean, we don't want to be New York, what about the carpet, yada. Got it. But, let's be honest. Heaps of riders eat and drink on the Metro as we speak! I see residents, not tourists, I'm talking about regular riders, who eat fries, chicken wings, morning Starbucks, whatever, on the trains, and to a greater extent, on the buses. There seems to be less of a stigma of eating and drinking on Metrobus and only on rare occasion will I see a driver give the beatdown to a customer with a coffee in hand. But yes, many a rider drink and eat on the train.

On a rare winter morning I will take my Sticky Fingers soy latte filled mug on the subway. Believe it or not, I don't drink it! I only travel a few stops to work and I absolutely do not like being stared down by 'snide morning commuter.' You know who I'm talking about. It's lady who got on at Shady Grove, but didn't get a seat. So she's mad at her seatless ride and mad at you because you have a soy latte and are drinking it and she hasn't such a luxury. Or its government worker guy who really has to speak up and say "You KNOW that's not allowed." Really government worker guy... Really? Yea, I know.

So anyway, I want to avoid these people, some of whom apparently think that holding coffee is equitable to drinking coffee. Sorry! Two totally different activities people! One is lawful, the other is unlawful. I, sir or madam, follow the law. On Metro. The one about eating and drinking on it. That's the law I follow. For now. I guess I have to concede. The rule does help to keep the trains cleaner. But sometimes I really want to taste the espresso and soy goodness.

Jeez. Ok, I gotta go. Sticky Fingers closes in a few minutes!

Handgun Ruling Not Just a Constitutional Issue

The sounds of handgun fire are not foreign to most who live in DC.

Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down a decision that will have sweeping implications for the the same residents whether they supported the ruling or not. The court ruled, in common 5-4 fashion, specifically that the District's handgun ban was unconstitutional and generally that American individuals have the right to own guns. The District laws had been in place for more than 30 years and made owning a handgun a logistical and legal near impossibility. The ban was absolute, but complete enforcement was nearly impossible.

Recently, I felt the sting of gun violence in DC. Many of you may have known Timothy Spicer of Ben's Chili Bowl. I had gotten to know him from eating there almost daily, at the counter and we always had a good laugh whenever I visited. He shared his dreams of starting his own business and moving up in the world. Tim was 25. He was killed late last year, in DC by the hand of someone with a gun, during a car jacking. I was devastated along with his other friends, family and colleagues. Ben's maintains a nice and moving tribute to him in the back room.

I had assumed that most people in DC who really wanted a gun, had a gun, legally or illegally. But I understand why the ruling was struck down. Essentially, DC had been staring a Constitutional showdown in the face for over 30 years. The strict handgun ban laws had tempted gun rights advocates many times. However, none of the cases, or at least a definitive guns rights case had made it to the Supreme Court. It took a case this clear cut for the issue to be resolved. For now.

The ruling does not mean that there will be DC residents legally packing guns at restaurants, on the Metro and buses or on street corners. Mayor Fenty has vowed to limit the ownership ruling to households only; meaning conceal and carry will still be strictly regulated and probably still banned. You will, however have the right to lawfully own, and keep loaded, a handgun in your own home. Those who were illegally carrying guns will do nothing different because of the ruling! They will go on illegally carrying guns just as they did last week or last year.

I can't begin to speculate what the ruling means for the violent crime rate. No one really knows if it will go up, down, remain the same, or change for other reasons. It's just too early. I do know that there will be more residents with guns though. That's nearly a foregone conclusion. And that does not make me happy.

...nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.

Today I almost yelled at a man. He was driving a late model VW; black, clean, and with Maryland tags. There was a lone bicycle attached to the top and room for one more on the rack. He was alone in the car and looked like he knew where he was going.

Problem was he was screaming down this little side street. I guess he had just emerged from the Park and was cutting through the hood. Or perhaps he lives here, I have no idea. Had to be traveling, 35, 40 mph. Doesn't sound too bad, but it looks a lot faster and feels more dangerous up close. Plus he stopped right in the middle of the crosswalk as I was making my way across. I try, I really do. I try to not let these sort of small things bother me, but today I just got a little annoyed at (allegedly) another Marylander who uses our neighborhood as a quick cut through and doesn't look out for pedestrians. That's not to say that drivers from the neighborhood don't speed through the side streets, they do on occasion. But the idea of someone from MD doing it seems worse...? Work with me here people.

I didn't yell, but I secretly wished that we were in Virginia AND there was a law enforcement member about AND the driver was traveling at least 20mph over the limit. At least then there would have been a chance for the guy to get one of the new 1050$ traffic tickets that the Old Dominion has started issuing. That's right, over ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS. My parents told me about the new "system" a month ago, but I've just started to see the media reports. The NY Times does a good job at explaining the nonsense so I won't go over it all. Suffice to say that if you are ticketed for driving at least 20 mph over the posted speed limit, you'll pay ONE THOUSAND AND FIFTY DOLLARS as a penalty. There are numerous other traffic offenses that will land you in debtor's prison as well. Or just in debt. Oh yeah, and the penalties only apply to Virginians! Alas, the Marylander would have been exempt from the high price of speeding had we been in the Ole' D. I guess that's a good thing. Would have ruined the poor fellow's day. And I would have felt double-bad for yelling.