Living
Maryland Senate kills trans rights bill
More disappointment for activists; Miller blamed for failures
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.
Advice
I make more money than my partner and getting resentful
She’s taking advantage of a joint credit card
Hi Michael,
I make a fair amount more money than my girlfriend does and I’m happy to contribute more to our life (we are both in our 20s and living together).
But Meg doesn’t seem to care how much money she spends and then asks me to front her when she’s running low. She seldom pays me back.
Last week she had a big night on the town with her best friend (formerly her girlfriend) for the friend’s 30th birthday. She hired a limo and spent a lot on drinks and dinner. She put the entire night on our joint card which we are only supposed to use for shared household expenses, because she had maxed out her own card. Of course I will wind up paying for it. (And I am slightly jealous. Why am I paying for her evening out with her former GF?)
I pay for all sorts of stuff all the time because her credit card gets too big for her budget.
And somehow I almost never end up getting her share of the rent, which is already prorated according to our incomes.
She always tells me she’ll pay me back but her tab pretty much just keeps getting bigger.
If I bring this up with her, she tells me I am cheap because I make a lot and we’re a couple; and if she made more, she’d have no problem sharing everything with me.
Am I just being ungenerous? I don’t know. Sometimes I think she’s an ingrate, but then I think if you’re in love, you shouldn’t be thinking of money, just taking care of the person you love.
Also, although I make more than she does, I’m by no means rich. I have my own student loans, and paying for the bulk of our lifestyle stretches me thin some months.
Michael replies:
For starters: Most couples must contend with some version of your struggle with Meg, because most couples have some income disparity.
Do you maintain a lifestyle that both of you can afford? That works for some relationships where the lower earner may not want to feel indebted to the partner who makes more. Other couples work out a system where they pay for expenses in proportion to their income. And in some instances, the higher earner may have a “what’s mine is yours” philosophy and the lower earner is OK with that.
What matters is that both partners come to a mutual agreement and are comfortable with the arrangement. In other words, they collaborate.
That’s not the case with you and Meg. You sound resentful, angry, and feeling like Meg is taking advantage of you.
It’s great to be generous in your relationship, but it’s also important to have a boundary when you think it’s important to have a boundary. Yet you’re continuing to subsidize Meg even when you have trouble making your own ends meet.
Important question: Have you told Meg that you’re stretched thin some months? If not, I’d be curious as to how you’ve made that decision. If so, I’d be curious as to Meg’s response.
If you don’t want to keep serving as Meg’s piggy bank, what is stopping you?
There’s a great saying in psychotherapy: If it’s hysterical, it’s historical. Meaning, our “big” actions and reactions have their roots in our history.
Think about your life history: How does it make sense that you are acting like a powerless victim?
Is not having a boundary an old and familiar dynamic for you? Were there important players in your life—for example, your parents—who insisted it was their way or the highway? Or perhaps you learned as a kid that if you ever said “no” to your friends, there’d be negative consequences?
Now ask yourself what might be keeping you stuck in a relationship of resentment. Are you re-creating an old and familiar dynamic? Sometimes we keep putting ourselves in the same miserable situation, over and over again. What’s familiar can be comfortable, even if it’s miserable; and we may be trying to get some understanding of the dynamic and some power over it, to finally get it right.
I’m just speculating here, to encourage you to think for yourself why you are staying in the dynamic you describe. You haven’t mentioned anything positive about your relationship, or about Meg.
Another possibility: I wonder if you might be so fearful of being alone that you’re willing to tolerate all sorts of treatment in order to stay in your relationship. Or perhaps you don’t think you deserve to be treated any better than this.
Again, if this is the case, where might this belief be coming from? Understanding why we are stuck in behaviors that keep us miserable can help us to get unstuck.
You have an opportunity to do something different here: Set a boundary and take power over your life. Perhaps if you did so, Meg would surprise you by shifting her stance, which would be good news if you have some good reasons to stay. Or perhaps she would not. Your challenge now is to get some sense of what’s holding you back, if you want something different for yourself. And unless you act on your own behalf, you will stay in this position.
One more point to consider, regarding Meg’s dinner date with her ex: Whether or not anything is going on, I take your jealousy as a sign that you don’t trust Meg. And without trust, you can’t have a decent relationship.
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
April showers bring May flowers in life — and in real estate
Third time’s the charm for buyer plagued with problems
Working in the real estate sector in D.C. can be as uniquely “D.C.” as the residents feel about their own city. On any given day, someone could be selling a home that their grandmother bought, passed on to the relatives, and the transfer of generational wealth continues. In that same transaction, the beginning steps of building of generational wealth could be taking place.
Across town, an international buyer could be looking for a condo with very specific characteristics that remind them of the way things are “back home.” Maybe they want to live in a building with a pool because they grew up by the sea. Maybe they want a large kitchen so they can cook grandma’s recipes. Maybe they will be on MSNBC once a month and need to have a home office fit for those Zoom sessions where they will be live on air, or recording their podcast. Perhaps they play the saxophone and want a building with thick walls so they can make a joyful noise without causing their neighbors to file a cease-and-desist order.
What I found fascinating was getting to know my buyers. Why were they purchasing their property? What did they want to do with it? Was this their grandmother’s dream that they would have a place of their own someday? Did they finally think they would write that award-winning play in the home office? What dreams were going to be fulfilled while taking part in this transaction?
Somedays, the muck and paperwork slog of navigating home inspection items and financing checklists could get to be distracting at best, and almost downright disheartening at worst.
One of my clients was under contract on THREE places before we finally closed on a home. One building was discovered to have financing issues, and the residents were not keeping up with their condo fees. Another building had an issue with the title to the unit, which meant the seller could not sell the home for at least another year until that legal snag was resolved. As the months rolled by, she was losing heart and feeling defeated. When we finally found the third home, everything seemed great – and then about two weeks before the settlement, the rains came down and the windows leaked into the bedrooms.
Another delay. (Our THIRD). This time, for several more weeks.
I think she wanted to pack a suitcase, go to the airport, get on a plane somewhere and never come back. What ultimately happened? The building repaired the windows, the seller’s insurance replaced the hardwood floors, and she bought her first condo, which she still enjoys to this day.
As Dolly Parton says, “If you want the rainbow, you’ve got to put up with a little rain.” And finally, after months of looking, waiting, and overcoming obstacles, the rainbow peeked out from behind the clouds.
Joseph Hudson is a referral agent with Metro Referrals. He can be reached at 703-587-0597 or [email protected].
Autos
Sporty sedans: BMW 530i xDrive, Mercedes AMG CLA 3
Tariffs are here and the result is financial chaos
It’s official: Tariffs are here, and the result is financial chaos.
So, what to do when purchasing a new vehicle? If you need one in the not-so-distant future, buy sooner (like yesterday) rather than later. Expect prices to rise quickly, as inventory dwindles, demand soars, and automaker incentives evaporate. Of course, if a new ride isn’t a priority for at least a year or three, then hold off until the dust settles.
But for those of you looking for new wheels now, I recently drove two sport sedans that were a pleasant reprieve from the usual plethora of pickups, minivans, and SUVs.
BMW 530i xDRIVE
$63,000
MPG: 28 city/35 highway
0 to 60 mph: 5.5 seconds
Cargo space: 18.4 cu. ft.
PROS: Rakish looks. Race-car vibe. Rock-star amenities.
CONS: Rad-but-quirky infotainment system. Rich price.
IN A NUTSHELL: Classic good looks, from the iconic grille and swept-back headlights to chiseled side panels and a tasteful tush. For a gearhead like me, the BMW 530i xDrive — completely redesigned last year — is as rapturous as Michelangelo’s David. Everything here is in proportion, from the design to the drivetrain, which — along with a gutsy 255-hp turbo and all-wheel drive — helps deliver a divine experience behind the wheel. Even better, my test car came equipped with the heavenly M-Sport Package: 21-inch wheels, athletic suspension, and assorted styling upgrades.
A tech-laden cabin is outfitted with a sparkly 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster and 14.9-inch touchscreen infotainment system. With the windshield head-up display and a slew of knobs and toggle switches in the center console and on the steering wheel, I wondered if this is how it feels to pilot the Space Shuttle. There is even a back-lit interaction bar with touch-sensitive controls to adjust vent direction and other climate control settings.
All this gadgetry takes some getting used to, but the overall effect is dazzling. While a 12-speaker Harman Kardon stereo comes standard, I was jammin’ to the 16-speaker Bowers & Wilkins premium audio. Of course, such options add up quickly (on my test car, the extras totaled $13,000).
Just how fun is this car? In my favorite episode of “Hacks,” sassy Jean Smart drives a rockin’ Rolls Royce Wraith. Trust me, this four-door BMW is every bit the badass as that $300,000 super coupe.
MERCEDES AMG CLA 35
$58,000
MPG: 22 city/29 highway
0 to 60 mph: 4.8 seconds
Cargo space: 11.6 cu. ft.
PROS: Slick styling. Spiffy cabin. Sublime seats.
CONS: Smallish trunk. So-so rear headroom and legroom.
IN A NUTSHELL: Need a smaller sedan that’s just as marvy as the midsize BMW i530? Look no further than the compact Mercedes CLA-Class, which is 14 inches shorter. That’s a benefit when jockeying for parking or navigating rush hour.
Another plus: This is Mercedes’s least expensive sedan, available in three trim levels. All come with the same potent turbo but in varying power levels. The base model starts at $46,000, but I tested the first of two high-performance versions: the AMG CLA 35, which costs $12,000 more. You can open your wallet even further to snag the $67,000 AMG CLA 45.
But why bother? The AMG CLA 35 is plenty quick — faster than the BMW i530 — and boasts sport-tuned brakes, deft handling and a gritty-sounding exhaust system. The laundry list of standard features includes all-wheel drive, automated parking, gobs of the latest safety gizmos and even something called “safe-exit assist,” which prevents passengers from opening a door into traffic or speeding cyclists.
The interior is pure Mercedes, with top-notch materials, customizable ambient lighting and Burmester surround-sound audio. The overall layout—sleek and modern, but with elegant stitching in the seats and on the door panels and dashboard—is comfortable and user-friendly. Digital displays and touchscreens are similar to what’s in the BMW i530, just smaller.
Size matters, of course, which is why this vehicle’s shorter length can be a blessing but also a curse, especially when trying to squeeze passengers with longer legs into the backseats. And the dramatically sloped roofline, attractive from the outside, limits the amount of rear headroom and cargo space. Thank the automotive gods for panoramic sunroofs, which—at least for anyone in the front seats—makes this cabin feel surprisingly spacious.
PDAB: A mysterious acronym that could affect your health
I make more money than my partner and getting resentful
D.C. liquor board extends drinking hours for WorldPride
PHOTOS: Victory Fund National Champagne Brunch
Executive director of LGBTQ Catholic group to travel to Rome for conclave
TRAITOR: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has blood on his hands
Potential Pope Francis successor views homosexuality as an ‘abomination’
Jacob Elordi rides high in ‘On Swift Horses’
Liberal Party wins Canadian election
