Sunday, September 28, 2008

The Sept. 15 Metro article "Ruling Inspires New Hope for Transgender People," about the Maryland Court of Appeals' rejection of a petition drive to hold a referendum on Montgomery County's poorly constructed transgender anti-discrimination law, unfortunately omitted some of the significant objections to the law that have been raised by residents.

First, the "transgender" discrimination law never actually uses the word "transgender." It includes a broad definition of "gender identity" that lacks qualification or exemptions and that has caused many residents, business owners and religious leaders to speak out about the bill's defects. The county did extensive research on similar but quite different gender identity and gender expression bills from communities across the country, but the County Council needed to look no further than the city of Baltimore, the only other jurisdiction in Maryland with such a "gender identity" law.

Baltimore's definition of discrimination includes five exemptions that would have protected Montgomery County residents, but the County Council chose not to include them in its bill. Thousands of people wrote to the council voicing concerns, but the council ignored them. Thus residents had no recourse but to mount a petition drive.

The process of collecting petition signatures was proper and should not have been invalidated. In November, the Board of Elections determined that signatures from 5 percent of the active registered voters would be required to place a referendum on the bill on the ballot. That was fair, because including inactive voters would not be appropriate. Most of them are inactive for a reason -- they're not available. The Board of Elections validated signatures that were collected from 5.36 percent of active voters. It is grossly unfair to now contend that the petitions needed to include signatures from 5 percent of all registered voters, active and inactive.

Regrettably, council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large) has taken this occasion to post inflammatory accusations on the county's Web site and to attempt to marginalize residents who take a different view from her own. Her Sept. 9 press release contained inaccuracies and distortions; it should be removed from the county's Web site immediately.

For example, in June I led a freedom-of-speech gathering outside an Equality Maryland gala. In her news release, Trachtenberg called my fellow demonstrators and me "anti-LGBT" and said we were holding signs "attacking all of us." I personally produced those signs, and they were not hateful. Two signs questioned why Equality Maryland was challenging the democratic process by suing the Board of Elections. Another sign thanked Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler, who was attending the gala, for having his office file a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Board of Elections in Equality Maryland's lawsuit.

The assembly was peaceful; although security personnel required us to leave the county-owned property and stand on the other side of a four-lane street, transgender people in formal attire crossed over to have a friendly discussion with us. After an extended conversation, I invited one of them to come to the church I attend. I think we could all benefit from more dialogue and from keeping vitriolic rancor off of the county's Web site.

According to The Post, advocacy groups contend that there are as many as 2,000 transgender people in Montgomery County. I firmly believe that each of these individuals must be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. But we cannot support defective laws that others could use to trample the privacy, security and religious liberties of a million other people in Montgomery County.

-- Robert Nelson

Gaithersburg