Living
Tough questioning for Gallagher at marriage hearing
Democratic lawmakers hammer anti-gay activist
Maggie Gallagher, chair of the National Organization for Marriage (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Democratic lawmakers on Friday hammered anti-gay activist Maggie Gallagher during a congressional hearing with questions on why same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage and the extent to which the National Organization for Marriage participated in campaigns to rescind state marriage laws.
In testimony before the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Gallagher, NOM’s chair and co-founder, said marriage should restricted to one man and one woman because such unions are the only kind that can produce children and because state voters by referenda have affirmed 31 times that marriage shouldn’t be extended to gay couples.
“Marriage is the union of husband and wife for a reason: these are the only unions that create new life and connect those children in love to their mother and father,” Gallagher said. “This is not necessarily the reason why individuals marry; this is the great reason, the public reason why government gets involved in the first place.”
The hearing, which was titled “Defending Marriage,” took place on the heels of President Obama’s announcement on Feb. 23 that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that his administration would no longer defend the anti-gay law against litigation in court. Following a 3-2 party-line vote in March by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Council, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) directed the House general counsel to take up defense of DOMA in place of the administration.
Gallagher said the need to raise children by married parents of opposite genders affirms the rationale for having in place DOMA, the 1996 law that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriage, and criticized the Justice Department for dropping defense of the law.
“This is the rationale for the national definition of marriage proposed by Congress in passing DOMA: ‘civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing,'” Gallagher said. “If we accept, as DOMA explicitly does, that this is a core public purpose of marriage, then treating same-sex unions as marriage makes little sense.”
Following her opening statement, Gallagher bore the brunt of tough questioning from Democratic lawmakers during the question-and-answer session of the hearing.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, asked Gallagher if the children of Jen and Dawn BarbouRouske, a married same-sex couple from Iowa who were present during the hearing, should have parents who can receive the full protections of marriage or if she considers these children “expendable.”
“I think no children are expendable,” Gallagher replied. “Gay people have families that are not marital families, but they are families. I myself was an unwed mother, so I have firsthand experience with being in a family that’s not a marital family. I don’t think you need to have a message of stigmatization and exclusion to protect to an ideal.”
Nadler, sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation in the House, interrupted Gallagher, saying “the whole point” of DOMA is stigmatization and exclusion, and pressed Gallagher further on why the institution of marriage benefits when same-sex couples are excluded.
“Because including same-sex unions as marriages denies at a public level that marriage is about an important way for getting together mothers and fathers and children,” Gallagher said.
Nadler continued to question Gallagher on NOM’s involvement in 2010 Iowa campaign that successfully ousted three justices from the state Supreme Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. The lawmaker asked Gallagher, who estimated that NOM contributed between $600,000 and $650,000 to the campaign, why she would criticize the Justice Department for allegedly making a political decision while her organization politicized the judicial process.
“The National Organization of Marriage is political advocacy organization, and so I think it’s appropriate for us to be politically involved in ways that Department of Justice is not,” Gallagher replied.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), a co-sponsor of the DOMA repeal bill, asked Gallagher whether reports were true that her organization contributed $1.9 million to the 2009 campaign in Maine to abrogate the states’s same-sex marriage law. Opponents of same-sex marriage succeeded in nullifying the marriage law in the state before gay couples could marry there.
“I don’t have those figures in front of me, but we were involved in the [effort],” Gallagher said. “But that’s probably on the order [of our contributions].”
NOM has repeatedly come under fire for failing to disclose their donors during the campaign against the Maine marriage law. State courts have ordered the organization to reveal their donors in accordance with the law, but NOM has yet to do so.
Following the hearing, Dan Fotou, eastern regional field director for GetEQUAL, praised Democratic lawmakers for hammering Gallagher with tough questions after her testimony.
“I think it was good to hear the Democrats standing up and challenging Maggie Gallagher’s position,” Fotou said. “Fifty-two percent of Americans think that marriage equality is OK, so I think today was good in terms of putting a face on hate once again, and Maggie does a really great job of that.”
Democratic lawmakers’ criticisms during the hearing weren’t limited to Gallagher. Conyers questioned Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), chair of the subcommittee, why no witnesses from the Justice Department were present to defend Obama’s decision to drop defense of DOMA.
“What bothers me about this hearing at this subcommittee is that the Department of Justice is not present,” Conyers said. “I was informed that they were not invited. … We have one of the leaders of the country, Ms. Gallagher, who’s raised hundreds of thousands of dollars against judges … but there’s nobody here from the Justice Department.”
In response, Franks said the Justice Department would be invited to come during an upcoming hearing in May before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee on the DOMA decision. Upon further questioning, Franks maintained the panel was fair because its makeup included witnesses on both sides of the issue.
But Franks’ response apparently didn’t allay the concerns of Conyers, who said he hopes Congress can hear the Justice Department to respond to the criticisms of Gallagher.
“There’s a political tone in this hearing that I want to diminish as much as possible,” Conyers said. “The fact of the matter is this is not in regular order and I do not approve the way that we’re starting out this subcommittee [hearing].”
Despite the general tone in favor of DOMA during the hearing, several panel members known for having anti-gay views — including Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who’s railed against same-sex marriage in home state, and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who’s leading the effort to eliminate gay nuptials in D.C. — didn’t make an appearance. Neither the office for King nor Jordan responded to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on why the lawmakers didn’t attend the hearing.
Ian Thompson, who’s gay and legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the lack of presence by anti-gay lawmakers was telling that the they were uncomfortable with their positions.
“The thing that was particularly striking to me was the fact that so few DOMA supporters on the committee actually were in attendance,” Thompson said. “So, from my perspective, if the hearing was intended to demonstrate the support of the House of Representatives for DOMA, from the attendance alone, it was a complete and total flop.”
Rep. Trent Franks (Blade photo by Michael Key)
But a few anti-gay Republicans did make an appearance to rebuke the notion of extending marriage rights to gay couples and to criticize the Justice Department for dropping defense of DOMA.
Franks called Obama’s decision to discontinue defense of the anti-gay law an “edict” that “failed to show the caution and respect for Congress and the courts.”
“When the President unilaterally declares a duly enacted law unconstitutional, he cuts Congress and the American people out of the lawmaking process,” Franks said. “Such heavy-handed presidential action undermines the separation of powers and the principle that America is a constitutional republic predicated on the rule of law.”
Franks continued that the arguments in favor of DOMA are “reasonable and right” because marriage between one man and one woman is the best union for raising children.
“Traditional marriage has proven to be the most successful institution in humanity’s history for the propagation and preparation of the next generation,” Franks said. “The traditional family has proven to be the best department of welfare, the best department of education, the best department of crime prevention, and the best department of economic security that there has ever been.”
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a lawmaker known for anti-gay views, also made an appearance at the hearing and railed against what he called the government altering the definition of marriage. Smith, chair of the full House Judiciary Committee, offered an opening statement during the hearing even though he’s not a member of the subcommittee.
“If we tamper with the definition of marriage, harmful unintended consequences could follow,” Smith said. “The ability of religious institutions to define marriage for themselves to promote their sincerely held beliefs could be threatened.”
Smith said the will the people is for continued definition of marriage between one man and one woman — noting the 31 successful ballot initiatives that restricted marriage to such unions — and said the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide protections for same-sex couples seeking to marry.
“No one can seriously believe that the Constitution’s founders intended to create a right to same-sex marriage,” Smith said. “By refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act against legal challenges, the administration has allowed the courts to overrule that popular law.”
Franks and Smith’s opening statements were countered by initial remarks from Nadler, who called arguments that Justice Department acted inappropriately by dropping defense of DOMA a “red herring” and said the real question should be whether anyone — either the Obama administration or Congress — should defend the law.
“Far from demeaning, trivializing or destroying the institution of marriage, [gay] couples have embraced this time-honored tradition and the commitment and serious legal duties of marriage,” Nadler said. “Rather than defending DOMA in court, Congress should be working to repeal it.”
Two legal experts on the panel presented opposing views on whether the administration acted within bounds in its decision to discontinue defense of DOMA in court.
Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, said the Justice Department’s decision is in violation of its policy.
“The Obama administration’s decision to abandon defense of DOMA — or more precisely, to abandon its charade of pretending to defend DOMA — departs sharply from the Department of Justice’s long-standing practice,” Whelan said.
Whelan said Obama dropped defense of the anti-gay law to appease a political constituency and to induce the courts to “invent the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
“With the exception of laws that intrude on the executive branch’s power, the long-standing practice of the Department of Justice is to vigorously defend the constitutionality of any law where a reasonable may be made,” Whelan said. “This ‘reasonable standard’ is a very low bar. It basically means that the Department of Justice will defend a federal law against constitutional challenge when it can offer non-frivolous grounds in support of the law.”
Carlos Ball, a gay law professor at Rutgers Law School (Blade photo by Michael Key)
But Carlos Ball, a gay law professor from Rutgers Law School, testified that Obama acted within his authority because another statute exists saying that the attorney general must inform Congress if the administration decides to no longer defend a law.
“The existence of that statute seems to be a recognition by the Congress of the reality that the executive branch sometimes, in rare cases, can not defend the constitutionality of a law,” Ball said. “The executive branch, as a co-equal branch of government, has the authority and obligation to make independent assessment’s regarding a law’s constitutionality.”
Ball noted precedent for an administration declaring an existing law unconstitutional and dropping defense of the statute in court — the 1990 case of Metro Broadcasting v. FCC. Then-acting U.S. Solicitor General John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, argued that a law providing for minority preferences in broadcast licensing was unconstitutional. Despite the position of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court later upheld the law.
As the summer rental season ramps up, be aware that scams can affect both tenants and landlords. As a property owner looking to rent out your space, you might encounter various fraudulent schemes when advertising your property online. Understanding these scams and recognizing the red flags can save you stress and even financial loss.
Three of the most common scams that landlords face in the District of Columbia include the following:
1. Fake Payment Scams
Tenants provide fraudulent checks or money orders for rent or security deposits. These payments appear legitimate initially, but eventually bounce or are identified as fake.
Why it works: Scammers take advantage of the delay between the initial deposit and the time it takes for banks to identify fraudulent checks, allowing them to secure access to the property. Once they do, they have possession and in the District of Columbia, that means a court case to remove them.
Prevention Steps:
- Verify Funds: Wait for the check or money order to fully clear before handing over keys or signing the lease. This can take several days.
- Use Electronic Payments: Encourage tenants to use electronic payment methods like bank transfers or verified payment apps, which can be more secure and quicker to verify.
- Bank Verification: Contact the issuing bank to verify the authenticity of the payment instrument.
2. Identity Theft Scams
Prospective tenants use stolen or fake identities to pass background and credit checks. Once they secure the lease, they may engage in illegal activities or fail to pay rent.
Why it works: Scammers exploit the reliance on documentation and credit reports which, if fake, can be difficult to verify without thorough checks.
Prevention Steps:
- Thorough Screening: Conduct comprehensive background checks, including employment and previous rental history.
As a self-managing landlord, this can be both time-consuming and complicated. There are several easy ways to get caught in unlawful methods of screening based on the Districts strict tenant laws. When in doubt to get it legally right, seek out professional help, so you do not inadvertently end up violating regulations in place to protect renters.
- In-Person Meetings: Meet prospective tenants in person and request multiple forms of identification to verify their identity. Again, it’s critical to do this within the boundaries of the law. Make sure if you do it for one, do the same process, have the same questions and take the same actions for all interested parties.
- Cross-Check Information: Contact employers and previous landlords directly using publicly available contact information to confirm details provided by the tenant. Make sure you are indeed speaking to their prior or current landlord by preparing very specific questions about their lease agreement or other items a fake reference will not know or will stumble to answer.
3. Subletting Scams
Tenants illegally sublet the property to others, often at a higher rate, without the landlord’s knowledge or permission. This can lead to over-occupancy and property damage. You may also not know who is living in your unit or if they would have qualified if you had screened them. Lastly, if they have possession of your property, getting them out involves a court case.
Why it works: Scammers take advantage of landlords who do not monitor their properties closely, allowing them to profit from unauthorized subletting.
Prevention Steps:
- Find management: Ensure that preventative steps are taken, to ensure renter compliance with any sub-letting rules you’ve laid down in the original agreement.
- Regular Inspections: Conduct regular property inspections to ensure that only authorized tenants are residing in the property. Inspections in the District are tricky, a landlord cannot just enter at will or too frequently. Be sure you know the rules, or ask a professional for advice before you enter your renter-occupied property.
- Lease Clauses: Include clear clauses in the lease agreement that prohibit subletting without written permission from the landlord. Is your agreement rock solid? Or do you need professionals on your side who know what to do to ensure both you and your renters are protected fairly?
- Neighborhood Watch: Establish good communication with neighbors who can alert you to any suspicious activity or unauthorized occupants. If you used to live at that location your former neighbors and friends are the best way to keep eyes and ears out on what is going on in your property and to alert you to any unusual behaviors.
By taking these preventive measures, landlords can better protect themselves from common scams and ensure a more secure rental process.
Anatomy of a Common Rental Scam
Another prevalent scam starts when you post an advertisement for your rental property. Scammers may copy your listing, post it at a lower price, and pretend they are the landlords. Unsuspecting tenants may pay a deposit to them or even the first month’s rent to these fraudsters, believing they are securing their new home. Here’s how the scam typically unfolds:
Step 1: Scammers take the details and photos from your legitimate listing and create a fake one, often with lower rent to attract more potential tenants.
Step 2: They claim to be out of town and unable to show the property, urging potential tenants to drive by and view the property from the outside.
Step 3: They ask for a security deposit or the first month’s rent via online payment methods before the tenant has signed a lease or even seen the inside of the property.
How to Protect Yourself
Here are some steps you can take to protect yourself from these scams:
Secure Your Listing: Use reputable rental platforms and websites known for their security measures to advertise your property.
Watermark Your Photos: Adding a watermark to the images in your rental listings can prevent scammers from easily stealing your photos.
Educate Potential Tenants: Inform applicants about common scams and encourage them to be cautious of listings that seem too good to be true, ask for money up front, etc.
Meet or Video Call Potential Tenants: If possible, meet tenants in person or through a video call to verify their identity and discuss the rental terms. Requiring a matching photo ID during the application process is an added layer to ensure this is the same person.
Verify Tenant Information: Conduct a comprehensive background check, including credit, employment, rental history, and criminal records.
Red Flags for Landlords
To protect yourself and potential tenants from a scam like this, be aware of the following red flags during the tenant screening process:
- Paying All Cash Upfront: If a prospective tenant offers to pay the rent for the entire lease period in cash without a proper background check, be cautious. This can be a sign that they want to avoid detection due to illegal activities or poor credit history.
- Urgency to Move In: A tenant who is pushing to move in immediately, especially without seeing the property, should raise a red flag. They might be trying to rush the process before you notice any inconsistencies in their story or background.
- Lack of Interest in Viewing the Property: Be wary of tenants who do not ask to see the property or who are satisfied with just external views. Genuine tenants will usually want to inspect where they are going to live.
- Poor or Incomplete Documentation: If a tenant cannot provide proper identification, proof of income, or previous rental history, this is a significant warning sign. Scammers often avoid giving out personal information that can be traced back to them.
- Unusual Payment Methods: Be cautious if a tenant wants to use unconventional payment methods like wire transfers or cryptocurrency. Standard practices include checks, bank transfers, or credit card payments, which offer more security and traceability.
Organizations That Can Help
If you find yourself a victim of a rental scam, there are organizations that can offer assistance and guidance:
Federal Trade Commission (FTC): They handle complaints about deceptive and unfair business practices, including rental scams. You can file a complaint at ftc.gov.
Better Business Bureau (BBB): The BBB provides information on businesses, including complaints and scam alerts. Visit their website at bbb.org for more resources.
Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3): This is a partnership between the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center, and it allows victims to report internet-related criminal complaints. Visit their site at ic3.gov.
Local Law Enforcement: Contact your local police department to report the scam, especially if money has been exchanged.
By staying vigilant and informed, you can protect yourself and potential tenants from falling prey to these sophisticated scams. Remember, prevention is always better than cure, especially in the real estate market.
(Note: For examples of the three scams included, we have produced some of the content of this article using AI.)
Scott Bloom is owner and senior property manager of Columbia Property Management. For more information and resources, go to ColumbiaPM.com.
Dining
Behind the bar with Moon Rabbit’s Thi Nguyen
Cocktails work in harmony with thoughtfully executed Vietnamese dishes
Thi Nguyen’s hands move purposely behind the bar, her all-business, cobalt blue nails gleaming under the warm lighting of recently relocated – and highly celebrated – Moon Rabbit. A dash of simple syrup infused with pandan – a shrub native to Southeast Asia with vanilla-scented leaves – moves deftly in her hands to lightly spice a cocktail that will soon receive another kick from ginger bitters.
Nguyen, Moon Rabbit’s celebrated bar manager, cannot be accused of holding back flavors from her drinks. Nor can she hold back her identity and her journey. Her journey from Saigon to Maryland to California and finally to D.C., but also her journey as a proudly out lesbian, unafraid to bring her whole self to all her pours.
Boundaries, borders, conventions: these matter little to Nguyen, who left several homes to finally find herself where she’s most comfortable, and where she acts as a leader and mentor for others to do the same. Just as she doesn’t hide her identity, she also doesn’t hide that her cocktails complement Moon Rabbit’s vibrant, contemporary Vietnamese cuisine. Owner/chef Kevin Tien pays tribute to his heritage as a first-generation Asian American, using Moon Rabbit as a platform for expressing his love for Vietnamese culture and food through a determinedly modern lens.
Her cocktails, then, work in harmony with thoughtfully executed dishes like chewy rice cakes under a tofu crumble and cured egg, deconstructed crab Rangoon, and wagyu-stuffed perilla leaves brightened by fermented honey.
Sitting with the chefs and acclaimed owner Kevin Tien, “we begin by exploring cookbooks together,” in a collaborative process, “to find inspiration and potential flavor combinations. It involves a lot of research and development, trial and error, experimentation, and technique.”
“And while this sometimes leads to failures, it ultimately helps us discover the perfect pairings.”
Her menu arrives without flavor hesitations. Cocktail names are given in both English and Vietnamese (as are the dishes), a signal that she is asking diners and drinkers to join her and trust her as unapologetic about her Vietnamese craft.
The Hết Nước Chấm (Out of Dipping Sauce) drink is composed of vodka, passionfruit liqueur, a squeeze of lemon, and a simple syrup based on nước chấm– also known as fish sauce. While nodding to the popularity of the savory martini, this cocktail also reflects the ubiquity of fish sauce on the Moon Rabbit menu and across Southeast Asia.
Other ingredients? Sesame oil, coconut milk, palm syrup, and chrysanthemum all show up in various drinks, alcoholic or otherwise. She also creates cocktails that highlight and celebrate gay icons, drawing inspiration not just from the menu and research but also LGBTQ history and culture.
This pride in her work is reflected in the pride in her identity.
“Being part of the LGBTQ community has taught me the importance of authenticity, resilience, and inclusivity. I am unapologetic about who I am and show up at work proud of my identity, which helps create a space where others feel comfortable and supported.”
Tien, Nguyen, and his staff are highly intentional in staffing. “This commitment to inclusivity is reflected in our hiring practices; we intentionally build a diverse bar team that includes members of the LGBTQ community,” she says.
Just like her physical journey, arriving in this place of leadership and comfort took a circuitous path. In the face of microaggressions and ignorance, comments and assumptions, lack of understanding and respect, she has been able to “strengthen my resolve to create an inclusive and supportive environment.” She ensures that she’s active in events that raise funds for LGBTQ non-profits around the DMV area, including SYMAL, CCI Health Services, and KhushDC.
“I hope to encourage other LGBTQ individuals to pursue careers in hospitality and to advocate for greater inclusivity and acceptance in their own workplaces.”
Moon Rabbit, formerly located at the InterContinental Hotel on the Wharf, closed with a shock last year (its closure took place among a unionization drive by the hotel’s staff that the hotel had opposed). Debuting in its new location in Penn Quarter in January, Moon Rabbit quickly retook its place as a top dining destination: the restaurant was recently added to the Michelin guide. In June, Nguyen herself was named one of the best new bartenders in 2024 by Punch magazine. As Pride month closes out, Nguyen remains as dedicated to her craft – and her advocacy – as ever.
Sometimes it’s good to be a fairy godmother. That’s how it was for me when organizing a surprise dinner party for my husband Robert, who was celebrating a milestone birthday.
Event planning isn’t my thing, yet somehow the stars aligned. It seemed like all I had to do was wave a wand and — voila! — the magic began.
Make reservations at a fave intimate restaurant, which often gets booked months in advance? Zing! Ensure that family and childhood friends from across the country could all attend the same weekend? Zing! Find a handsome pianist to serenade us with Broadway show tunes. Zing again!
The only thing missing: a stunning chariot. But then, at the last minute, my test car for the week turned out to be—zing!—the all-electric BMW i7 xDrive60 glam sedan.
BMW i7 xDrive60
$121,000
MPGe: 87 city/95 highway
Range: 291 to 321 miles
Fastest charging time: 212 miles in 34 minutes (80% charged)
PROS: Hyper fast. Sublime cabin. Dazzling tech.
CONS: Pricey. So-so cargo area. A sedan in a world of SUVs.
IN A NUTSHELL: To drive or not to drive, that’s the question with the BMW i7. Rarely is it more exciting to be the passenger than the driver in a sports sedan, especially a Bimmer. But as I chauffeured my husband to the restaurant on his birthday, he seemed to be having way too much fun enjoying the dizzying array of creature comforts.
Spa treatment. The futuristic seats, made of quilted Merino leather, are as plush and comfortable as anything from Roche Bobois. But the optional cashmere/wool fabric looks and feels even better. All seats—both front and rear—come with ventilation and heating that activates much quicker than in most cars. The superb massage function does bodywork like a real masseur—but without the need to tip 20% when your session ends.
Concert-hall acoustics. Other high-priced rides offer premium audio, but the standard Bowers & Wilkens stereo in the i7 is bravo: 18 speakers and 655 watts. Better yet, my test car had the much-ballyhooed Diamond Surround Sound System, with 36 speakers powered by a 1965-watt amplifier. Yes, two of those speakers use actual diamonds to increase clarity. The result is perhaps the best-sounding vehicle acoustics ever.
IMAX-like screen. The Rear Executive Lounge Seating package adds a reclining right rear seat with footrest and a center console with foldable table that serves as a floating desk. Think first-class seating on an airplane. Most impressive is the huge, 31-inch 8K theater screen that drops down from the ceiling and comes with Amazon Fire capability. All rear window shades lower and the panoramic-glass roof shade closes when in theater mode. Built tastefully into the armrest on each rear door is what looks like an Apple iPhone to control the rear lighting, movie screen and other functions. Any home theater system should be so good.
Racecar features. Up front, the driver is spoiled with many other goodies. A curved digital screen, the same as in the cutting-edge BMW iX SUV, houses a 12.3-inch instrument cluster and 14.9-inch infotainment monitor. Two motors—one for each axle—creates an impressive 536-horsepower. Press the accelerator and—whoosh!—the i7 sprints from 0 to 60 mph in just 4.1 seconds. The amazing auto-leveling suspension absorbs potholes and speed bumps as if this 6,000-pound sedan were floating on air.
Rolls-Royce aura. BMW, which also owns Rolls-Royce, has sprinkled the i7 with stately design cues. This includes softer, more graceful styling and none of the severe, chiseled angles of previous BMWs. Other plusses: Swarovski crystals in the headlights and 22 precision-focused LEDs in the high beams. But the illuminated grille, while impressive, has a more ominous vibe. (Stephen King’s Christine, anyone?)
Full-size comfort. The i7 is a full-figured ride, more than 17-feet long and 6.4-feet wide. Here’s where the automatic parking comes in handy, allowing this BMW to parallel or perpendicular park itself. Trunk capacity is 18 cubic feet, which is decent but less than some competitors. Inside, though, there are plenty of clever storage compartments.
A pretty penny. Full of options, my test car was a wallet-busting $152,000. But that’s a bargain—well, sort of—compared with the high-performance i7 M70. With 650 horsepower and a 0-to-60 time of 3.5 seconds, the M70 is the fastest all-electric M car ever made. It also costs $169,000.
Alas, such sticker prices are too rich for my blood. Sorry Robert, maybe if we win the lottery.
HRC slams White House over position opposing gender affirming surgeries for minors
Parades, community events held to mark Pride Month in Va.
Concern over marriage equality in US grows two decades after first Mass. same-sex weddings
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe and Asia
Toronto Pride parade cancelled after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt it
Toronto Pride parade cancelled after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt it
Stephen Mark Lukas makes sublime turn in ‘Funny Girl’
Despite record crowds, Baltimore Pride’s LGBTQ critics say organizers dropped the ball
Haters troll official Olympics Instagram for celebrating gay athlete and boyfriend
Members of Congress introduce resolution to condemn Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act
-
Canada1 day agoToronto Pride parade cancelled after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt it
-
Theater5 days agoStephen Mark Lukas makes sublime turn in ‘Funny Girl’
-
Baltimore3 days agoDespite record crowds, Baltimore Pride’s LGBTQ critics say organizers dropped the ball
-
Sports4 days agoHaters troll official Olympics Instagram for celebrating gay athlete and boyfriend