Living

Maryland Senate kills trans rights bill

More disappointment for activists; Miller blamed for failures

Published

14 years ago

April 14, 2011

Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery County), a supporter of the trans rights bill, disagreed with those who accuse Senate President Mike Miller of orchestrating the measure's defeat. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

A gay member of the Maryland State Senate issued a strongly worded statement criticizing his colleagues for voting 27-20 on Monday to send a transgender non-discrimination bill back to committee, an action that killed the bill for the year.

Sen. Richard Madaleno (D-Montgomery County), one of the lead sponsors and longtime supporters of the Gender Identity Non-Discrimination Act, known as HB 235, joined LGBT activists in expressing outrage over the Senate’s action.

“Every homeless transgender person that dies on the street will do so because of the Senate’s failure to pass HB 235,” Madaleno said in a statement released late Monday.

“Every transgender individual who cannot provide for themselves or their family because they are denied employment based on their gender identity will do so because of the Senate’s failure to pass HB 235,” he said.

The bill, which calls for banning discrimination against transgender people in the areas of employment, housing and credit, including bank loans, had been approved last month in the state’s House of Delegates by a vote of 86 to 52.

Initial head counts of senators led supporters to believe they had the votes to pass the measure in the Senate. But activists working with the statewide LGBT group Equality Maryland said that, to their great disappointment and surprise, as many as seven Democrats backed off from earlier commitments to vote for the bill.

Of the 27 senators voting to send the bill back to committee, 16 were Democrats and 11 were Republicans. Democrats hold a 35 to 12 majority in the Senate.

Of the 20 voting against the motion to send the bill to committee, 19 were Democrats. Just one Republican, LGBT rights supporter Allan Kittleman of Howard and Carroll Counties, voted against the motion to send the bill back to committee.

“Of the ones that voted to recommit, there were at least seven that we felt had committed to us that they were going to support this and then they backed out,” said Dana Beyer, a Montgomery County transgender activist and former House of Delegates candidate who worked closely with Equality Maryland to lobby for the bill.

“It’s always a guess,” said Beyer, when asked why supporters turned against the bill. “It’s shocking because we didn’t expect this. There are a thousand ways to kill a bill. This is one way to do it and I have to lay it at the hands of the Senate leadership.”

Beyer and others familiar with the bill said they believe Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D-Prince George’s and Calvert Counties), orchestrated the bill’s demise.

Miller was among the senators who voted for the motion to recommit the bill to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, which voted 7-4 one day earlier to approve the bill and send it to the Senate floor.

Miller did not return a call seeking comment as of press time on Wednesday.

Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery County), chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee and a supporter of the bill who voted against sending it back to committee, disagreed with those who blame Miller for killing the bill.

“I’m sorry that it lost,” Frosh told the Blade in an interview Tuesday. “But I think the president said a week ago publicly, and he had been saying all session, that there aren’t the votes on the Senate floor to pass it. And he was right.”

Added Frosh: “There were 20 votes for the bill. You need 24. And it’s a shame, but it’s a fact of life.”

According to Frosh, Equality Maryland has repeatedly miscalculated the vote count on the Gender Identity Non-Discrimination Act this year and in previous years, when the bill died in committee.

Frosh said he is doubtful that supporters would be able to line up the four votes they need to pass the bill next year.

Beyer disputes Frosh’s assessment, saying that Equality Maryland and others obtained clear commitments from senators who voted to send the transgender bill back to committee on Monday.

“It wasn’t just Equality Maryland that was doing the vote count,” she said. “There was a coalition of people that had personal relationships with various senators who got commitments from those senators.”

Miller, for reasons not fully understood by the bill’s supporters, “twisted arms” to get Democratic senators supportive of the bill to vote for the motion to recommit to committee, Beyer said. She said she and others associated with Equality Maryland confirmed this from reliable sources close to the Senate that she declined to identify due to promises of confidentiality.

Miller became the target of an aggressive campaign by Equality Maryland and a coalition of transgender activists and allies organized by Beyer after he diverted the bill to the Senate Rules Committee following its approval by the House of Delegates.

The Rules Committee has long been viewed as a “graveyard” for bills out of favor with the Senate leadership. Activists backing the bill viewed Miller’s decision to single out the transgender bill for diversion to the Rules Committee while clearing dozens of other bills for the normal route to standing committees as an attempt to kill the bill.

But in a development that Annapolis political observers viewed as rare, Miller backed down amid a barrage of e-mails and phone calls to his office and to the offices of other senators demanding that the bill be released to the Judicial Proceedings Committee for a vote.

The Judicial Proceedings panel voted April 8, following a 90-minute debate, to approve the bill and send it to the Senate floor. The committee’s action led supporters to believe they had a fighting chance to see it through a full Senate vote.

Morgan Meneses-Sheets, Equality Maryland’s executive director, said she was especially disappointed that several senators that voted to recommit the bill to committee on Monday had assured the group of their support for the measure.

“I wish I had a why,” she said. “This means that we really need to examine our steps moving forward. But I must emphasize that we got so far this year,” she added, noting that the bill was killed in committee for the past four years without ever reaching the floor of the Senate or House.

“We are thankful to every legislator who did do the right thing,” she said. “We are so thankful to every constituent who wrote a letter and made a phone call, and especially to the transgender people of Maryland who came out and told their stories, who shared their very personal need for job and housing protections.”

“We will continue to fight every day. We will continue to analyze how we can get these important protections in place. But we are shocked and frankly appalled by this action today,” she added.

The vote by the Senate came on the last day of the Maryland Legislature’s 2011 session and followed less than 15 minutes of debate.

Sen. C. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George’s County) asked whether the bill would have an impact on private citizens seeking to choose a roommate in a private home. Muse also asked whether the bill’s proposed ban on employment discrimination would force the Boy Scouts organization to hire a transgender person or prevent any employer from establishing a dress code.

Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery County), one of the lead sponsors and supporters of the bill served as floor manager for what was expected to be a lengthy Senate floor debate. Raskin told Muse the bill would not cover people in private homes looking for roommates.

Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery County) (Blade photo by Michael Key)

“If you’re looking for a roommate, you can discriminate on any basis you want,” he said.

Raskin said the bill would cover the Boy Scouts organization for employment purposes, but said a transgender person seeking a job with the Boy Scouts would have to meet all other requirements for the job, including appropriate dress codes. He said the Boy Scouts, like any other employer, could not refuse to hire someone solely because of their status as a transgender person under the bill’s provisions.

Immediately after Muse and Raskin completed their exchange, Sen. James DeGrange (D-Anne Arundel County) offered a motion to recommit the bill to committee.

“I respect the work the committee’s done on this bill,” he said. “I know there’s a huge concern in this body toward this. To that I’d like to move that the bill be re-referred back to committee.”

Raskin and Sen. Catherine Pugh (D-Baltimore City) rose to oppose the motion, urging their colleagues to give supporters a chance to vote on the bill.

“It’s been way whittled down,” said Raskin in describing how the bill’s public accommodations provision was removed by House supporters to ease concerns by lawmakers hesitant to vote for the bill.

“This is just about giving people the right to live someplace and the right to earn a living,” he said.

Miller, presiding over the Senate, then called for a recorded roll-call vote on the motion. When the Senate chamber’s electronic board showed the motion had passed by a 27-20 vote, expressions of shock could be heard in the chamber, especially by supporters seated in the visitors gallery.

The bill’s defeat represented a victory for an odd coalition of opponents.

A faction of transgender activists, led by the group Trans Maryland, called on the Senate to kill the bill because it did not go far enough. The group said a decision to take out a provision protecting transgender persons from public accommodations discrimination – which includes stores, hotels and public bathrooms, among other places – made the bill unacceptable.

The bill’s supporters said they reluctantly agreed to a decision by the bill’s chief sponsor in the House, Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D-Prince George’s and Anne Arundel Counties), to remove a public accommodations provision from the previous year’s version of the bill. Pena-Melnyk said doing so was the only way the measure could have cleared a House committee and have any chance of passing either body.

The anti-LGBT group Maryland Citizens for A Responsible Government led efforts among conservative religious and political groups to oppose the bill on grounds that no transgender civil rights protections should be enacted. The group’s leader, physician Ruth Jacobs, organized telephone and e-mail campaigns targeting lawmakers that vowed to bring the issue up in the next election.

The transgender bill’s defeat followed by a little more than a month the defeat in the Maryland Legislature of a same-sex marriage bill that drew national media coverage. In what some in the LGBT community have viewed as an ironic twist, the marriage bill died after the Senate approved it and the House of Delegates sent it back to committee rather than take a full up or down vote on the measure.

In the case of the marriage bill, a coalition of LGBT groups, including Equality Maryland, favored sending it back to committee after determining they did not have the votes in the House to pass it and it would be better to avoid a losing vote.

Some in the LGBT community disagreed with that decision. But in the case of the transgender bill, nearly all of its supporters, including Equality Maryland, wanted the Senate to vote on the measure.

Beyer said her sources close to the Senate believe it would have passed had Miller and the Senate leadership agreed to allow it to come up for a full vote.

“He twisted enough arms to send it back to committee but he couldn’t get enough people to vote no on the bill itself,” she said. “That’s what we’re being told by people in the know.”

Madeleno could not be immediately reached to determine if he agrees with Beyer’s assessment of Miller’s role in the bill’s defeat.

But Annapolis observers believe Madaleno made it clear in the strongly worded statement he released on Monday that he was angry at Miller, even though he did not mention the Senate president by name.

“I am extremely disappointed by the Senate’s action today to send HB 235 back to the Judicial Proceedings Committee,” Madaleno said in the statement.

“The twisted and unfair process HB 235 had to go through to even make it to the Senate floor mars the Senate’s otherwise outstanding work this year,” he said. “The Senate’s treatment of this legislation will be remembered for a long time by the LGBT community and Marylanders who believe in equal rights for all.”

Madaleno said he plans to introduce a new version of the bill next year that will include a public accommodations provision.

Up Next

Delaware approves civil unions

Don't Miss

National news in brief: April 15

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

Real Estate

No Rose, your interest rate has nothing to do with how many likes you got on Hinge

Many factors help determine rates these days

Published

3 hours ago

June 14, 2025

Joseph Hudson

With the rise of interest rates in recent years, buyers must understand the many factors that go into the final number. (Image by HomeStead Digital/Bigstock)

Picture it, you’re sitting in the lunchroom at work, and your coworker just bought a house. Another coworker bought one a few months ago and you hear that she got a totally different interest rate than the other one did, even though they both bought houses not that far from each other. Homebuyers everywhere have been wondering what interest rates they are going to get, lately. It’s easy to read an article online or see an ad on social media stating specific numbers, but there may be more than meets the eye going into a particular buyer’s interest rate.

What are the factors that can affect the interest rate a buyer eventually “locks in”?

Property details – certain properties may be in neighborhoods with higher rates of foreclosure, or there may be specific census tracts that allow a buyer to participate in the “Fannie Mae Home Ready” and “Freddie Mac Home Possible” programs, which carry more flexible requirements such as various income limits and lower interest rates, to help people begin homeownership.
Type of loan / loan amount– a conventional, conforming loan or a jumbo loan can have differing interest rates, as well as FHA loans.
Credit score – most people are aware that this affects what interest rate is quoted, just like on a credit card. Some lenders will work with you on ways to improve a credit score if the goal is to buy six, nine, or 12 months from now.
Lock period – do you want to lock in the rate for 30 days? 45? Market volatility can cause the rates to change so it will cost more money to hold onto a particular interest rate.
Loan to value ratio – one can still buy a home with less than 20% down, but the rate that is quoted may be higher.
Occupancy type – is this the primary residence or an investment property?
Points bought or credits taken – A buyer can pay the lender a fee to buy down the interest rate, or the seller can sometimes offer a credit. This has become more popular in recent years.
Market conditions – keep an eye on the news – as we are all aware, change is the only constant!

Lender Tina del Casale with Atlantic Union Bank says, “With jumbo fixed rates in the low 6’s, and first-time buyer down payment assistance loans such as DC Open Doors, rates are in the mid 7’s. With the added factors of your income, the address you are purchasing and your credit score factoring into the equation, interest rates are different from buyer to buyer these days. So, skip the online tools and make a few calls because that’s the only way to get an accurate quote these days!”

It might feel like an overwhelming amount of information to take on, but remember, there are people that help others take these big steps every day. A trusted lender and Realtor can guide their clients from start to finish when it comes to purchasing a home. And for that, you’ll be saying, “thank you for being a friend!”

Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with Metro Referrals. Reach him at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].

Advice

Stop haranguing your husband about how you think he should behave

Make your point and then move on from the argument

Published

22 hours ago

June 13, 2025

Michael Radkowsky

Make your point and move on but don’t insist your significant other sees everything your way. (Photo by TeroVesalainen/Bigstock)

Michael,

My husband is great, but he’s a pushover. It happens at work a lot. For example: His colleague, who came back from maternity leave about four months ago, is always leaving early. And Jeremy is always staying late to finish the jobs that they should be doing together.

But the most galling to me is that he doesn’t speak up for himself in his family. His parents (in my opinion) overtly favor his brother (who is straight) and his brother’s family. I could give a lot of examples. The latest: They’re treating the brother and the family to a cruise.

We’ve been together for 15 years, married for 12, and never get any such treatment.

Jeremy says his brother is strapped for cash (four kids, one income) and the family needs a break, whereas Jeremy doesn’t need his parents to pay for his (or our) vacation. I don’t really want to go on a cruise but it’s the principle of the thing.

Again, this is just one example. I feel bad for Jeremy being walked on, over and over, and I want him to start standing up for himself. Despite my repeated entreaties, he won’t.

When I push him on this, he tells me I’m not seeing the whole picture, or he sees it differently, or it’s not a big deal, or he’s fine with things as they are.

I can’t see how he could be fine with being taken advantage of, or not being appreciated. I think he’d have a much better life if he actually set some boundaries with people.

How do I persuade Jeremy to listen to me and be more assertive?

Michael replies:

Do you see the irony in complaining that you can’t get your husband to listen to you about being more assertive and setting a boundary?

You’ve made your point to Jeremy, repeatedly, and Jeremy is telling you to back off. In other words, he’s assertively setting a boundary with you.

You can’t get someone else to behave in the way you want, even when you’re certain that your way is best. Jeremy gets to decide how he wants to conduct himself.

Here’s a pattern I have noticed over and over again through my years of working with couples: When you try to do something for someone that is their own job to do, both you and the person you are trying to “help” wind up being resentful. You get annoyed that the other person won’t listen to your wonderful advice, and the other person gets annoyed because they don’t want someone else telling them what to do or how to live their life.

In this case, you’re trying to get Jeremy to stand up for himself more than he does, and he’s not interested in changing how he operates.

A great rule for relationships: You can advocate for what you want, but you have to let go of the result. (And advocate sparingly, or you risk being a nag).

You are continuing to argue the same point to Jeremy, and Jeremy isn’t interested in listening to you. As you asked for my advice, here it is: Cut it out before he gets into the resentment stage, if he’s not already there, as you apparently are.

Also, please consider that your repeatedly criticizing Jeremy’s parents where Jeremy sees no problem could damage not only your relationship with Jeremy, but also his and your relationship with his family.

We get to marry the person we marry. We don’t get to insist that they upgrade to a better (at least in our opinion) version. Trying to do so is not just disrespectful and a waste of time, it poisons the relationship.

So find a way to live with Jeremy as he is, or — if you find his acquiescent nature unbearable — leave. But don’t spend the rest of your marriage, or even another day, haranguing him about how you think he should behave.

Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].

Real Estate

The best U.S. cities for LGBTQ homebuyers in 2025

Where strong equality scores, vibrant culture, attainable prices converge

Published

6 days ago

June 8, 2025

Scott Helms

Philadelphia is among cities that rank highest for LGBTQ homebuyers. (Photo by sborisov/Bigstock)

Buying a home has always been a landmark of security and self-expression. For LGBTQ+ people, it can also be a powerful act of claiming space in a country where housing equality is still a work in progress. The good news? This year offers more options—and more protections—than ever. A record-breaking 130 U.S. cities now score a perfect 100 on the Human Rights Campaign’s Municipal Equality Index (MEI), meaning their local laws, services, and political leadership actively protect queer residents, reports.hrc.org. Meanwhile, national housing analysts at Zillow expect only modest price growth this year (about 2.6 percent), giving buyers a little breathing room to shop around.

Below are eight standout markets where strong equality scores, vibrant LGBTQ+ culture, and relatively attainable prices converge. Median sale prices are from March 2025 Zillow data.

1. Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN

Median sale price: $317,500

Twin Cities residents benefit from statewide nondiscrimination laws that explicitly cover sexual orientation and gender identity, a thriving queer arts scene, and dozens of neighborhood Pride celebrations beyond the mega-festival each June. Buyers also appreciate Minnesota’s down-payment assistance programs for first-time and BIPOC purchasers—many LGBTQ+ households qualify.

2. Philadelphia

Median sale price: $227,667

Philly combines East Coast culture with Mid-Atlantic affordability. “Gayborhood” anchors like Giovanni’s Room bookstore mingle with new LGBTQ-owned cafés in Fishtown and South Philly. Pennsylvania added statewide housing protections in 2024, closing the legal gaps that once worried trans and nonbinary buyers.

3. Pittsburgh

Median sale price: $221,667

Don’t let the steel-town stereotype fool you—Pittsburgh’s MEI score is 100, and its real-estate dollar stretches further than in comparable metros. Lawrenceville and Bloomfield have become hubs for queer-owned eateries and co-working spaces, while regional employers in tech and healthcare boast top Corporate Equality Index ratings.

4. Tucson, Ariz.

Median sale price: $328,333

This desert city punches above its weight in LGBTQ+ visibility thanks to the University of Arizona, a nationally ranked Pride parade, and some of the country’s most picturesque outdoor recreation. Arizona’s statewide fair-housing statute now explicitly lists gender identity, giving buyers added recourse if discrimination occurs.

5. Madison, Wisc.

Median sale price: $413,867

Madison blends progressive politics with a top-five public university and a booming tech corridor. Local lenders routinely promote inclusive marketing, and Dane County offers one of the few county-level LGBTQ+ home-ownership programs in the nation, providing up to $10,000 in forgivable assistance for low-to-moderate-income couples.

6. Atlanta

Median sale price: $359,967

The cultural capital of the Southeast delivers queer nightlife, Fortune 500 jobs, and a web of supportive nonprofits such as Lost-n-Found Youth. While Georgia lacks statewide protections, Atlanta’s 100-point MEI score covers public accommodations, contracting, and employer requirements—shielding homebuyers who choose in-town neighborhoods like Midtown or East Point.

7. St. Petersburg, Fla.

Median sale price: $354,667 Yes, Florida’s statewide politics are turbulent, but St. Pete has long held firm on LGBTQ+ equality. The city’s Pride festival draws nearly a million visitors, and local ordinances bar discrimination in housing and public services. Waterfront bungalows in Kenwood and more affordable condos near Uptown give first-time buyers options.

8. Denver

Median sale price: $563,500

Colorado passed some of the nation’s strongest gender identity housing protections in 2024, and Denver’s queer community remains one of the most visible in the Mountain West. Although prices run higher, buyers gain exceptional job growth and one of the country’s largest Gay & Lesbian Chambers of Commerce.

Smart Strategies for LGBTQ+ Buyers & Sellers

1. Build Your Dream Team Early

Work with an equality-focused real-estate pro. The easiest way is to start at GayRealEstate.com, which has screened gay, lesbian, and allied agents in every U.S. market for more than 30 years.
Choose inclusive lenders and inspectors. Ask whether each vendor follows HUD’s 2021 guidance interpreting the Fair Housing Act to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

2. Know Your Rights—And Limitations

Federal law bars housing bias, but enforcement can lag. Document everything and report issues to HUD, your state civil-rights agency, or Lambda Legal.
In states without full protections, rely on city ordinances (check the MEI) and add explicit nondiscrimination language to your purchase contract.

3. Evaluate Neighborhood Fit

Use local data: crime stats, school ratings, transit, and MEI scores of nearby suburbs.
Spend time in queer-owned cafés, bars, and community centers to gauge true inclusivity.

4. For Sellers: Market With Pride—And Professionalism

Highlight proximity to LGBTQ+ resources (community centers, Pride festivals) in your listing remarks.
Stage neutrally but inclusively—rainbow art is great, but removing personal photos can protect privacy during showings.

The landscape for LGBTQ+ homeowners is evolving fast. By coupling inclusive laws, supportive culture, and attainable prices, cities like Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and Tucson stand out for 2025. No matter where you land, surround yourself with professionals who value every part of your identity. Start your journey at GayRealEstate.com, lean on the resources above, and claim your corner of the American dream—on your own terms, and with pride.

Scott Helms is president and owner of Gayrealestate.com.