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.
“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.
Some vehicles age quietly — but not muscle cars.
For 2026, the Chevrolet Corvette tightens its focus, fixes one glaring flaw (the previously dowdy interior) and flaunts a futuristic design. The Dodge Charger, on the other hand, is loud and proud, daring you to ignore its presence at your peril.
CHEVROLET CORVETTE
$73,000-$92,000
MPG: 16 city/25 highway
0 to 60 mph: 2.8 seconds
Cargo space: 13 cu. ft.
PROS: Awesome acceleration. Race-car feel. Snazzy cabin.
CONS: No manual transmission. No rear seat. Tight storage.
Finally, the Chevrolet Corvette feels as good inside as it looks flying past you on the freeway. That’s thanks to the classy, completely redesigned cabin. Gone is the old, polarizing wall of buttons in favor of a sleeker, three-screen cockpit. There’s a large digital gauge cluster, a wide infotainment screen angled toward the driver, and a marvy new auxiliary display. Everything is modern and a bit glitzy — but in a good way.
Fit and finish are higher quality than before, and the controls are more intuitive. Chevy’s Performance App is now standard across trims, offering real-time data for drivers who enjoy metrics as much as momentum. And the new interior color schemes, including slick asymmetrical options, let you express yourself without screaming for attention—confidence, not obnoxious bluster.
As for handling, the steering is quick and sure, body control is exceptional, and acceleration is blazingly fast. A mid-engine layout also delivers sublime balance.
Three trim options, including the V8-powered Stingray, the E-Ray (also with a V8 but paired with electric all-wheel drive), and the Z06 and ZR1 variants for racing devotees.
(Note to self: For a truly mind-blowing experience, there’s the new 1,250-horsepower ZR1X all-electric supercar that goes from 0 to 60 mph in less that 2 seconds and is priced starting at $208,000.)
Yes, the ride in any of these Corvettes can be firm. And visibility is, well, rather compromised. But this supercar is a total Dom, not a timid sub. Think Alexander Skarsgard in “Pillion,” and you get the picture.
DODGE CHARGER

$52,000-$65,000
MPG: 16 city/26 highway
0 to 60 mph: 3.9 seconds
Cargo capacity: 22.75 cu. ft.
PROS: Choice of gas or EV power. Modern tech. Spacious cabin.
CONS: No V8 engine (yet). Soft steering. Less-than-lithe cornering.
Everything old is new again for the Dodge Charger. The automaker initially was phasing out gas-powered models in a shift to electric vehicles but then quickly pivoted back to include gas engines after yo-yo regulatory changes this year from, well, the yo-yos in the White House.
Powerful twin-turbo engines in the R/T and Scat Pack trims produce up to 550 horsepower. These models come standard with all-wheel drive but can be switched to rear-wheel drive for classic muscle-car antics when the mood strikes you.
At the same time, Dodge still offers the electric Charger Daytona, delivering up to 670 horsepower and ferocious straight-line acceleration.
The Charger’s aggressive design, massive digital displays and practical hatchback layout carry over, reinforcing its ability to be both a performance diva and everyday companion. With the larger-than-expected storage space, I appreciated being able to fit a boatload of groceries in the trunk during a Costco run.
New wheel designs, paint choices and trim variations help you visually distinguish between gas and electric Chargers. But no matter the model, each one feels decisive and deliberate on the road. Commuting in stop-and-go traffic during rush hour is fine, but this street machine excels at high-speed cruising on the freeway.
The turbo six-cylinder engine delivers muscular torque with less drama than the old V8s, but still with plenty of urgency. The electric Daytona version is a different kind of thrill, with its instant, silent thrust that feels like it could almost launch you to the moon.
Steering is stable but not exactly crisp, and the Charger’s weight makes it less lithe—and lively—than other muscle cars, especially when navigating tight corners.
But that’s just fine with me. Like Bea Arthur as Dorothy in “The Golden Girls,” this no-nonsense muscle car is proud to be big, bold and brassy.
Real Estate
Top buyer-friendly markets for the LGBTQ community
Home should be a place where you can be fully yourself
Buying or selling a home is one of the most meaningful financial and emotional decisions a person can make. For LGBTQ+ individuals and families, that journey can also come with unique considerations — from finding truly inclusive neighborhoods to working with professionals who understand and respect who you are.
The good news? Across the United States, there are increasingly buyer-friendly housing markets where LGBTQ+ home buyers and sellers can find opportunity, affordability, and community. When paired with the right representation, these markets can offer not only strong financial value, but peace of mind.
For more than 30 years, GayRealEstate.com has been the leading source of LGBTQ+ real estate representation, helping LGBTQ+ buyers and sellers connect with vetted, LGBTQ+ friendly real estate agents who understand the nuances of fair housing, legal protections, and inclusive service.
Below, we explore top buyer-friendly markets for the LGBTQ+ community, along with practical tips to help you navigate the process with confidence.
What Makes a Market Buyer-Friendly?
A buyer-friendly market isn’t just about lower prices — especially for LGBTQ+ home buyers. It often includes:
- Increased housing inventory (more choices, less pressure)
- Slower price growth or stabilized pricing
- Greater negotiating power for buyers
- Established or emerging LGBTQ+ communities
- Local protections and inclusive policies
- Access to LGBTQ+ friendly real estate agents and resources
Markets that combine affordability with inclusivity can be especially attractive for first-time gay home buyers, same-sex couples, and LGBTQ+ families planning for long-term stability.
Top Buyer-Friendly Markets for LGBTQ Home Buyers
1. Austin & San Antonio, Texas
Once known for extreme competition, many Texas metros have shifted into more buyer-friendly territory due to increased inventory.
Why it works for LGBTQ+ buyers:
- Strong LGBTQ+ communities, especially in Austin
- More negotiating leverage than in prior years
- Diverse neighborhoods at varying price points
Tip: Texas does not have statewide LGBTQ+ housing protections, making it especially important to work with an experienced LGBTQ+ friendly realtor through GayRealEstate.com.
2. Columbus & Cincinnati, Ohio
Ohio cities continue to attract buyers looking for value without sacrificing culture or inclusivity.
Why it works:
- Lower median home prices
- Growing LGBTQ+ populations
- Strong healthcare, education, and job markets
These cities are particularly appealing for LGBTQ+ buyers relocating from higher-cost coastal markets.
3. Richmond, Virginia
Richmond has become a standout for LGBTQ+ home ownership thanks to affordability, history, and progressive growth.
Highlights:
- Inclusive local culture
- Buyer-friendly price trends
- Walkable neighborhoods popular with LGBTQ+ professionals
4. Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota
The Twin Cities consistently rank high for LGBTQ+ quality of life and legal protections.
Why LGBTQ+ buyers love it:
- Strong anti-discrimination laws
- Stable home values
- Excellent resources for LGBTQ+ families
Minnesota offers one of the safest environments for LGBTQ+ home buyers and sellers navigating the real estate process.
5. Jacksonville & Tampa Bay, Florida
Florida remains complex for LGBTQ+ buyers, but some metros still offer strong buyer opportunity.
What to know:
- Increased inventory = more negotiating power
- Coastal lifestyle at lower cost than South Florida
- Local LGBTQ+ communities continue to grow
Because statewide protections vary, partnering with a GayRealEstate.com LGBTQ+ friendly real estate agent is essential.
Finding LGBTQ-Friendly Neighborhoods
Not every “affordable” neighborhood is inclusive — and safety, comfort, and belonging matter.
When searching for LGBTQ+ friendly neighborhoods:
- Look for visible LGBTQ+ organizations, events, and businesses
- Research local non-discrimination ordinances
- Ask your agent about lived experiences, not just statistics
- Talk to neighbors and local LGBTQ+ groups
Agents in the Gay Real Estate Network often provide insight that listing data alone cannot.
The Importance of LGBTQ Real Estate Representation
While fair housing laws exist, LGBTQ+ housing discrimination still happens — sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly.
Working with an LGBTQ+ friendly real estate agent helps ensure:
- Respectful communication
- Advocacy during negotiations
- Awareness of legal protections
- A safer, more affirming experience
GayRealEstate.com has spent over three decades building the most trusted network of gay realtors, lesbian real estate agents, and LGBTQ+ friendly real estate professionals nationwide.
Legal Protections Every LGBTQ Buyer and Seller Should Know
Federal protections now include sexual orientation and gender identity under the Fair Housing Act, but enforcement and local laws vary.
Before buying or selling:
- Understand your state and local protections
- Know how to document discriminatory behavior
- Work with professionals who take advocacy seriously
- Use trusted LGBTQ+ real estate resources
GayRealEstate.com agents are experienced in helping clients navigate these realities with confidence.
Tips for LGBTQ Home Buyers & Sellers
- Get pre-approved early to strengthen your buying position
- Interview agents and ask direct questions about LGBTQ+ experience
- Don’t ignore your instincts — comfort matters
- Plan long-term: community, schools, healthcare, and protections
- Use LGBTQ+-specific resources rather than generic searches
Buyer-friendly markets create opportunity — but representation creates security.
Whether you’re a first-time gay home buyer, a same-sex couple relocating, or an LGBTQ+ seller preparing for your next chapter, choosing the right market and the right representation makes all the difference.
For over 30 years, GayRealEstate.com has been the trusted leader in LGBTQ+ real estate, connecting buyers and sellers with professionals who understand the importance of inclusion, advocacy, and respect.
Your home should be more than a place to live — it should be a place where you can be fully yourself.
Scott Helms is president and owner of Gayrealestate.com.
Real Estate
Stress-free lease renewals during winter months
A season when very few tenants typically move
January has a way of waking everyone up. After weeks of holiday noise, travel, family visits, and a general blur of activity, the new year arrives with its usual mix of resolutions, optimism, and responsibility. People start looking at their calendars again. To-do lists reappear. And tucked away in there is something many tenants didn’t give much thought to in December, their lease renewal.
Renewals in winter matter more than most people realize. It is a season when very few tenants typically move. The weather is unpredictable, schedules are tight, and most people are trying to regain their footing after the holidays. Because of this, renewal conversations tend to be more productive and more grounded.
Many landlords think of spring and summer as the heart of leasing season, and while that’s certainly when moves are most common, winter renewals hold their own kind of importance. A well-timed renewal does more than keep a unit occupied. It provides predictability for the year ahead, strengthens relationships, and reduces the costly turnover that smaller landlords want to avoid.
In my experience, tenants who might hesitate during another time of year are often relieved to secure housing before the pressures of spring and summer begin. Uncertainty is one of the prime causes of unnecessary turnover. If tenants don’t hear from their landlord, they often start browsing listings “just in case,” or asking friends about other options. Once that door is opened, it can be hard to close. Initiating the renewal process early helps anchor tenants before doubts start creeping in.
Tenants often make clearer decisions in January than they would in November or December. During the holidays, people are distracted and stretched thin; emails are skimmed, not absorbed; and anything involving planning often gets deferred until “after the new year.” When tenants return home in January, they have a better sense of their plans, their budget, and their needs for the coming months. This makes it a much easier moment to start or restart a renewal conversation.
The practical reality is that most tenants don’t want to move in the winter. Who wants to haul furniture across icy sidewalks or deal with last-minute moving delays due to storms? Beyond the weather, January is a time when people are reorganizing finances, filing paperwork, and settling into routines. The thought of a major transition simply doesn’t fit. Landlords can use this natural reluctance to create a smoother, more collaborative renewal process.
One thing I’ve learned over the years is that clarity is a landlord’s best tool. Tenants don’t need lengthy explanations, legal jargon, or complicated attachments. They simply want to know:
- Are the terms changing?
- If so, how?
- What does their timeline look like?
- Would the landlord consider another set of terms?
A concise, well-laid-out renewal offer does two things. First, it demonstrates transparency, which builds trust. Second, it keeps the conversation focused and productive. When tenants understand exactly what’s being proposed, there is less back-and-forth, fewer misunderstandings, and a quicker path to a signed agreement.
Tenants are more receptive when they feel they’re being treated fairly and openly. If there’s a rent adjustment, a brief explanation helps tenants see the reasoning behind it, such as increased operating costs, significant maintenance completed during their stay or alignment with the market.
Lease renewals are moments of connection. The best landlord-tenant relationships are built over time through small exchanges, transparency, and mutual respect. Renewal season offers an opportunity to reinforce that.
A simple acknowledgement of the tenant’s care for the home or their timely payments can set a positive tone. Even a short note of appreciation signals that you see them not as a lease term, but as a partner in maintaining the property. These gestures cost very little but create a sense of goodwill that carries through maintenance requests, policy reminders, and everyday communication.
Many landlords underestimate how much tenants value being treated as individuals rather than account numbers. A thoughtful, personal touch during the renewal process can make a tenant feel recognizednand more inclined to stay.
Renewals aren’t only about securing another term lease.They’re also a natural moment to check in on the overall health of the property and the tenant’s experience. J anuary provides a quiet space to step back and ask:
• Are there maintenance concerns the tenant hasn’t mentioned yet or that have not been fully resolved?
• Is the property due for upgrades or any preventative work?
• Are there responsibilities or expectations worth revisiting?
These conversations don’t need to be long or formal, but they help prevent the small issues of one year from becoming the larger problems of the next. A tenant who feels heard is more likely to take good care of the home, communicate proactively, and renew again in future years.
While landlords must maintain structure and protect their assets, a bit of flexibility can go a long way during the renewal process. Tenants are often rebalancing budgets after holiday spending. Offering digital signatures, Having brief calls to clarify terms, being flexible, or a few extra days to make a decision can ease stress without compromising the landlord’s position.
Flexibility is about recognizing human realities. Most tenants appreciate being treated with patience and professionalism, and often reward that consideration with prompt decisions and smoother communication. There are many reasons why a full year renewal may not coincide with their plans. Being able to work out mutually agreeable renewal terms makes the solution a win for both parties.
For landlords, especially smaller ones, stability is the foundation of successful property investing. A vacant unit, even briefly, costs more than most people realize. There are marketing expenses, cleaning, repairs, lost rent, and the unpredictable timeline of finding the right new tenant. By contrast, securing a renewal with an existing reliable tenant protects cash flow, reduces risk, and creates predictability in planning.
January renewals, when handled well, deliver this stability right at the beginning of the year. They give landlords a clear roadmap for budgeting, maintenance scheduling, and forecasting. They also give tenants the security of knowing exactly where they stand, which reduces stress on both sides.
A lease renewal may seem like a small moment in the life of a property, but in practice, it shapes the experience of the year ahead. When the process is organized, honest, and respectful, it sets a tone that carries through every interaction until the next renewal date.
January is a time to consider leaning into this approach. The pace is slower, the mindset is clearer, and both landlord and tenant are ready to step into the year with more intention. A renewal handled thoughtfully now paves the way for a smoother, quieter, more predictable twelve months, something every landlord and every tenant can appreciate.
Scott Bloom is owner and senior property manager at Columbia Property Management.

