There’s a new, crisp smell in the air—is it fall? Or perhaps the first whiff of bipartisanship in the health care debate? Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine has finally been wooed to the, um, dark side—depending on your point of view—and along with 13 Democrats helped President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority clear a key Senate panel. Her rousing battle cry was straight from the mouth of Gandalf the Grey: “When history calls, history calls.”

A police officer on horseback was attacked yesterday by “at least 20 dogs” at Fort Dupont Park in Southeast, according to WUSA. The woman responsible for the dogs was taken into custody for letting them roam free. And for being a fugitive. Which might possibly explain why she had twenty dogs. That, or they were all Ringwraiths working for Sauron. Your call.

The Associated Press has a creepy-as-orks picture of Venezuelans gathering on a mountainside (which, for the sake of theming, will be called Mount Doom) for their annual pilgrimage to worship an indigenous goddess. Apparently they prick their tongues with razor blades—and I can’t read any more because the picture is making me nauseous.

Prince of Petworth is hosting a bloodthirsty, passionate debate as to whether there should be a Christmas tree in Columbia Heights Plaza. I’m not sure if hobbits celebrate Christmas (cue disintegration of theme…) .

So on a non-hobbit related note, there was also a Latin music festival on the South Lawn of the White House yesterday. Mexican singer, Thalía deemed President Obama's dance moves "Macho." No translation necessary. 

D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier has reportedly made budget cuts by refusing to hire new officers for the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit. Needless to say, the GLBT community isn’t thrilled. Lanier also got rid of the hostage-negotiation squad a couple months ago. This is the first I’ve heard of these kind of community-oriented units, and I like the idea; unfortunately, everything I write about (i.e., the Adams Morgan bicycle sculpture, the Georgetown Circulator) seems to die. I’ll stop this post now.

Drawing/Photo by Nadine Maude, Creative Commons Attribution License

In this week's column, LL spun a scenario whereby the D.C. Council might approve a same-sex-marriage referendum. That best-case hypothetical situation for gay-marriage opponents, LL wrote, would be if "Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr., on the hot seat with an election a year off, convinces Chairman Vincent C. Gray and at-largers Michael Brown and Kwame Brown to join him, Yvette Alexander, and Marion Barry."

Not so fast! Gloria Murry Ford, a staffer for Michael Brown, called LL yesterday to protest mightily that her boss would never ever consider compromising on such a key civil-rights issue. Not even in some harebrained hypothetical scenario! Never!

Duly noted. And, it should be said that Kwame Brown is signed on as a co-sponsor of the marriage bill, and Gray is not only a co-sponsor, but offered strongly pro-marriage-equality comments in a Washington Times interview earlier this week.

So that leaves Alexander, Barry, and Thomas.

The Post reported Barry is "keeping an open mind" on the marriage bill. (Yeah, right.) Thomas has been waffling for a while. And then there's Alexander, who spoke to LL today.

Don't count on her vote, David Catania.

"I stand where the president stands, that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman," she says, leaning heavily on the Obama civil-union crutch. She adds: "We give them just about everything that they would get [with marriage] with a domestic partnership."

And don't think any of those fancy terms is going to change her mind: "The word "marriage equality" for me doesn't make sensd. Marriage is between a man and a woman," she says. "How more equal do they want it?"

As for it being a human rights issue, Alexander thinks not. After all, she chairs the council's committee on again and community affairs, which has oversight over human rights matters. The bill isn't going to her committee, she points out, but solely to Phil Mendelson's judiciary committee. "No one can argue that it's a human rights issue if it's not going through human rights [committee]," she says, adding to her concerns that "I don't see how Congress is going to approve it."

As for a ballot initiative: "I think that would be the ideal situation."

Alexander says that Catania, the bill's sponsor, called her yesterday to ask whether she would support the bill. She was having lunch with Barry at the time. "When David asked me...he really didn't expect that I was going to cosponsor, but he gave me the courtesy of calling and asking."

And, no, she doesn't expect Barry to support the bill, either.

Still, you may ask: Why is LL so convinced that gay marriage would win big?

There's polls, you see: A July poll of registered Democrats in three wards conducted by leading business types showed 77 percent support for gay marriage. Then there's another, lesser known poll that's been whispered about for months among local same-sex-marriage advocates---a poll that the Human Rights Campaign, national advocacy group, had conducted in the spring showing upwards of 65 percent support citywide, LL is told by multiple sources. That's landslide territory.

But a couple of things worth mentioning on that polling. First off, the July poll was done in wards 1, 3, and 6---areas considered especially white and especially liberal. And, under a racial breakdown, the difference are stark: 92 percent of whites said they'd favor a council marriage bill, while only 41 percent of blacks said so. The age divide is stark as well: For those over 65 support drops to 64 percent from over 80 percent for all other age groups.

In other words: Surprise---the race and generational divides are real.

Then there's the HRC poll, which is shrouded in secrecy. LL has not seen an actual polling report or gotten any details on question format of sampling methodology. On Tuesday, LL called up the HRC and asked for details on the poll. This is what he got, a statement from spokesman Brad Luna: "From time to time, on a variety of issues of importance to our community across the country, we will go into the field with a public opinion poll. These polls are primarily done for internal guidance and the results of them are not released."

Obviously, the HRC has an interest in keeping the results close to the vest. Start publicizing that there's a huge majority in favor of your position, and you get local political columnists making harebrained arguments that you should betray your principles and just have a vote already.

The commenters over on the column have already started to explain why LL's got it all wrong. Feel free to chip in here as well.

At this minute, a 30-day congressional review period has expired, and you're now free to enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage in the District. (That includes divorce, incidentally.)

If you're looking to celebrate, the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club tonight is hosting a "Road to Equality Happy Hour" at Halo in Dupont Circle, 6 to 9 p.m.

Now look for the real fight to begin---over performing same-sex marriages in the District. At-Large Councilmember David Catania is all but certain to introduce a bill permitting that in the fall; opponents are likely to pursue a ballot initiative, which will end up being adjudicated by the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Expect to hear a lot about the "Amtrak argument"---if all couples have to do is take a train to Connecticut or Massachusetts to get married, why not just let them marry here?

LL was there with camera. Behold!

Adrian Fenty, Mr. Smart Car, opted for something a bit larger than his signature everyday conveyance for parade purposes: a white Hummer. Not a mini-Hummer, either---the big one. Gotta support American automakers these days, right? (What's that? Hummer's been sold to the Chinese? Whatever.)

Before the march, Bill Rice and John Falcicchio engage in high jinks:

No one tosses beads like Hizzoner:

After the parade, Fenty and his 30-some marchers (including sons Matthew and Andrew) gathered for pictures:

Vincent Gray's wheels were even less fuel-efficient. But his giant truck at least carried a couple of dozen staffers supporters:

Gray again handed out custom beads with a "One City" pendant:

Jack Evans and family (that's companion Michelle Seiver) hanging out pre-parade:

Evans had 25-plus in his retinue:

Eleanor Holmes Norton showed off her signature parade pose:

Phil Mendelson showed LL his campaign-ready tough-guy look:

Mendo alone among politicos opted for leis over beads. Gal pal Carol Mitten helped hand 'em out:

Mendo couldn't ask for a better advertisement than this homemade banner, which led his entourage:

And just so you know Mendo means business, his retinue was followed by a black Cadillac driven by his "muscle" (aka staffer Mike Battle):

Mendelson's likely challenger, former DPR chief Clark Ray, was also marching, but near the back, with local Gay Games promoters:

A smattering of "DC NEEDS CLARK RAY" stickers (in Fenty green-and-white) were spotted in the crowd:

David Catania printed up custom marriage equality signs---one of the most popular items along the parade route:

Once again, Catania had a special guest rider: Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh, aka the Queen of Green. LL asked Catania if he was king of anything: "The King of Queens, honey!"

Kwame Brown, however, was the king of bling, riding in a Porsche 911 Carrera:

Staffer Enrique Fernandez Roberts captured the hipster demo however, with his Kwamefied scooter:

Kwame brought a bubble machine, but LL did not see it in use:

Fenty wasn't the only politico to somewhat de-green. Tommy Wells traded in the Zipcar Mini Cooper he had last year for a Toyota Tacoma pickup:

For the second year running, couple Michael Ulrich and Paul Cooper, whom Wells joined in marriage, participated:

After missing the Pride parade for the first time in decades last year, Jim Graham was back in the saddle this year:

In one of the more eardrum-unfriendly developments, Graham marchers sported whistles:

Muriel Bowser brought a strong crowd:

Gay rights legend Frank Kameny, among the festival honorees:

D.C. For Marriage:

Gertrude Stein Democratic Club:

D.C. Democratic State Committee:

Ward 7 Democrats (Juan Thompson, right):

Ward 8 Democrats (Phil Pannell and Charles Wilson):

UPDATE, 4:20 P.M.: A couple of addenda:

Doxie McCoy, spokesperson for Gray, writes in to point out that "more than staffers were riding with the Chairman. We had people from GLOV/Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence, DC for Marriage, Metro TeenAIDS, and Gertrude Democratic Stein Club, in addition to reps from DC Vote, Pre-K for All DC, State Board, etc."

And Charles Allen, Wells' top aide, notes, "Just for the record, Tommy had rented a Mini-Cooper again. Zipcar notified him on Friday that they were cancelling his reservation because the car had to be taken into the shop for repairs. The Tacoma was the only open top (-ish) vehicle left in the Zipcar fleet on such short notice."

OK, green cred's intact!

Those of you expecting a late-Friday announcement on whether or not a referendum will be allowed on the District law recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages: Don't hold your breath.

"Doesn't look like it's going to be today," McGhie says.

More than 15 witnesses appeared Wednesday before board members Errol Arthur and Charles Lowery, who are charged with determining whether the gay-marriage law is protected from referendum by the District's human-rights laws. In addition to the oral testimony, the members have to consider written arguments from lawyers for referendum proponents, the D.C. Council, and the city.

For a referendum to go forward, both Arthur and Lowery would have to vote in favor. A 1-1 tie would mean a rejection of the referendum.

McGhie says not to expect a decision over the weekend: "It'll probably be Monday."

Jackson was featured in a five-minute segment midway through the O'Reilly Factor, as proof, according to host Bill O'Reilly, of "the staggering hypocrisy of the left and media that enables the far left to do these things."

Some backstory: On June 5, Lou Chibbaro Jr. reported in the Washington Blade that Jackson had only recently registered to vote in the District and that he listed his residence as a one-bedroom apartment in the Whitman, a Mount Vernon Square condo building. That, of course, is germane because he is (a) a proponent of a referendum on a District law and (b) required to be a registered District voter to do so. Earlier this week, Chibbaro added to his report, reporting that virtually no one at the condo building had seen Jackson and that Jackson is maintaining his residences in Maryland.

On Wednesday, at a hearing before the Board of Elections and Ethics, Jackson took time to decry the disclosures, calling them a threat to him and his family and an attempt to intimidate him and other same-sex marriage opponents.

On O'Reilly, he continued his protestations.

"Well, Bill," he started, "they hacked into my records, found out when I registered to vote in the District of Columbia. They printed in two newspapers my home address and the addresses of houses I own in the Maryland region, outside D.C. And there have been e-mails that have gone forth saying they want to destroy my church. Kind of amazing, isn't it?"

"It isn't," O'Reilly replied. "I'm not amazed by it." He then brought up his own recent troubles, where he's come under fire for his years of vitriol toward Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, leading some to suggest culpability in his brutal murder. Hypocrisy, he said: "You don't hear a word about people like you, and they're printing your name in the paper!"

Jackson continued: "You know, Bill, people are looking for privacy, and they say their rights need to be protected. And on the other side, unlike the civil rights movement...[which] operated with a Christian spirit, this minority is going to rise up and impose their will on the majority. And they don't care that I've got young adult daughters and a wife. They don't care what happens to my family. They just want it their way, and they'll intimidate you or me into submission if they can."

"How are you handling all this, as a man of God?" O'Reilly asked. "Are you forgiving them? Are you angry with them?"

Replied Jackson: "Well, I am praying for them and forgiving them. Bill, this is very much a spiritual battle in my view, and I look at Martin Luther King Jr. as the ultimate model in terms of his public resistance to oppression, and I think that this is going to deepen our faith roots if you will. But very sincerely, I cannot answer back, obviously, with the same kind craziness that they're operating with. But I'm glad that you've had me on tonight so that we can expose the fact that folks are saying one thing then doing something totally hypocritical on the other side."

Cue Bill O'Reilly, tough guy: "I know you can't do anything, but I can. And if anybody bothers you or your family, and if you believe that anybody's putting you in danger or doing anything against you church, I want you to call me immediately. And we will deal with those people, because we are going to defend people like you."

Then O'Reilly gave Jackson "the last word": "Thing that I'm so concerned about is that this kind of thing has a chilling effect on people standing up for their rights. Once people see what's happened to me, they say, 'Shoot, I'm not going to get involved. I'm not going to say my piece.'"

"That's why they do it to me! That's why they do it to you!" O'Reilly interjected. "And it's not the American way. It's un-American."

LL will make but one comment. OK, two. (1) You're fitting your wife and young adult daughters in a one-bedroom condo? (2) Obtaining the address and date of registration for a District voter by no means requires any "hacking." Any person is free to visit the offices of the Board of Elections and Ethics (441 4th St. NW, 2nd floor, south wing), walk into the waiting area, log in to a public computer terminal, and look up that information for any voter in town. In fact, call 202-727-2525, ask real nice, and they might even look it up for you. And land records? Those are public, too.

Open government: Very, very American.

The question before the Board of Elections and Ethics today is whether the law passed last month by the D.C. Council recognizing same-sex marriages performed out of state is the proper subject of a referendum. To wit, the main question is whether the bill is covered under the city's longstanding human-rights law, under which sexual orientation is a protected class.

But the debate here, in a packed second-floor hearing room at One Judiciary Square, has not stuck to those parameters.

After gaveling the hearing to order this morning, the board heard approximately 90 minutes of testimony from proponents of the referendum. They heard first from Brian Raum, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a "legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation."

Raum, for the most part, stuck to the question at hand, citing two cases supporting his contention that District human rights law does not apply to the marriage-recognition law. One was a New York state decision; the other was the landmark Dean v. D.C. case, which the D.C. Court of Appeals handed down in 1995. That decision, long lamented by gay marriage proponents, ruled that D.C.'s gender-neutral marriage statute in itself did not allow the city to issue gay marriage licenses. That decision Raum sees as proof that marriage is not covered.

"The referendum would not authorize discrimination," he said. He asked the board to allow the electorate "to decide this critical issue of social policy and not allow the few to decide the issue for the many."

Raum was followed by Bishop Harry Jackson, the minister who is leading the push against gay marriage in D.C. He began by decrying the disclosure of the fact that he recently moved to the District of Columbia. "My involvement in this process has to do with my love for D.C. and its people," he said, before describing how he believed how "due process has been circumvented" by the council vote.

Most of his testimony, however, had to do with the propriety of the legislation itself. "I'm not against anybody's individual rights," he says. "But I am against changing societal structure....We're pulling out one of the foundations of the structure." He was joined by a fellow minister, Dale Wafer, of The Harvest church.

Giving some of the most impassioned testimony was Patrick Walker, senior pastor with New Macedonia Baptist in Ward 7. Again, he stuck to the broader issue of gay marriage itself: "Or culture is evolving, and there is a shifting sand rejecting [God's] truth in our city." He also called the push for a referendum "another defining moment in the District of Columbia's history of self-determination and home rule."

Also on the list of witnesses was Walter E. Fauntroy, the civil rights leader and former delegate to Congress who is opposing the gay marriage legislation. But he was a no-show.

Then the freak show began. One gentleman, Leroy Swailes, introduced himself as an Oxon Hill resident, though he said, "I still consider that as being D.C." That earned him some chuckles.

Less funny was when he held up a selection of gay-themed children's books and said, "This is a pedophile book!" and that "homosexuality means the extermination of the human race" and that ne believes in human rights "but you have to be human---that means you have to deal with the opposite sex."

In opposition to the referendum, At-Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson offered testimony defending the council's procedure on the matter. In what's likely a first for Mendelson, he seconded Dick Cheney on the matter of gay marriage generally, citing his National Press Club comments last week in support of state-by-state gay marriage legalization.

Brian Flowers, the D.C. Council's chief attorney, refuted Raum's interpretation of the Dean case, explaining that much of the basis of the court's decision has changed since 1995.

Also adding testimony were Phil Pannell, the Ward 8 activist, who nodded toward the civil rights movement; Rick Rosendall of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance; and Jeff Richardson of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club.

UPDATE, 3:40 P.M.: Sorry for missing details: LL had to cut his piece short to go to the Holocaust Museum.

The board concluded the hearing after about an hour of testimony from the opponents of the referendum; Raum and Jackson were given opportunities to rebut prior testimony; Raum spent most of his time laying out his case why Dean means the Human Rights Act isn't applicable to marriage.

Throughout the hearing, most of the questioning was done by board member Charles Lowery and board attorney Kenneth McGhie. Board chair Erroll Arthur also chipped in a few queries. If the questioning was any guide, all three men express some skepticism of the proponents' case that marriage isn;t covered by the human rights laws.

With only two of three members currently seated (a third nominee, Omar Nour, is amid council conformation), the referendum supporters need both Arthur and Lowery to take their side. A 1-1 split, McGhie says, means no referendum.

Time is running out on the referendum supporters: They now have less than a month to collect tens of thousands of legitimate signatures. They can;t do that until the board rules. Arthur declined to say when a decision would be forthcoming, but expect it to be a matter of days, not weeks.

If the board accepts the referendum, a meeting would be convened within days to hammer out the ballot language. If it rejects the referendum, the proponents would have 10 days to petition Superior Court for redress.