County law gives special rights to those with 'gender identity' issues
Nearly 30,000 petition signatures are being delivered to officials in Montgomery County, Md., demanding that a public vote be held to allow citizens to decide on a law providing special rights to people with "gender identity" issues, including apparently the choice of whether to use men's or women's locker rooms and other public facilities.
Officials with Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government told WND that the organization had counted 28,000 signatures ready for delivery Monday night, and several thousand more had arrived today.
The new county law states, "Gender identity means an individual's actual or perceived gender including a person's gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity or behavior, whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the person's assigned sex at birth."
The law, when being proposed, at one point included a specific exemption for facilities such as locker rooms, but it was deliberately removed before adoption. A county spokesman earlier told WND that he didn't think it necessary to state such issues specifically.
Michelle Turner, a spokeswoman for the citizens group that has had as many as 200 volunteers spending their weekends at shopping malls and other locations collecting signatures, said it is "obvious" the plan "will have very real and serious repercussions."
"People are energized; they really feel betrayed by their county government," said Ruth Jacobs, president of the group leading the work on the initiative. "This issue [affects] the privacy of women and children."
It was her exchange with County Executive Isiah Leggett, who signed the controversial plan into law, that raised eyebrows. She had asked for the county to reconsider the bill, and he responded by demanding she "state the facts."
It was his opinion that the law would exclude restrooms and locker rooms from its inclusive "public accommodations," even though that is not specified, and in fact is not allowed in other portions of the county's anti-discrimination policies.
Leggett said such concerns amounted only to misrepresentations, because both he and the county council have articulated the view that such facilities are not included.
"Your reading of the terms of the bill is in error. If you are in disagreement with this, that is your right," he told her. "However, you have an obligation to state the facts."
So Susan Jamison, a lawyer for the citizens' group, weighed in with a rebuttal.
"With all due respect Mr. Leggett, it is important that we clarify exactly what the issues and risks here truly are. Your assertion that Dr. Jacobs is in error when she contends that there are serious locker room and restroom issues – is simply unfounded.
"The truth is that, unless our referendum effort is successful, any transgender could enforce his rights under this law in a court of law (in February) and, relying on the plain reading of the statute, obtain entry into female locker rooms and restrooms with little to stop him or the many who would follow," she wrote.
She cited the "plain wording" that those providing "public accommodations" cannot discriminate based on race, religion "and now 'gender identity.'"
For Leggett's interpretation to be valid, she noted, the county also would have to be allowed to exclude such facilities from other anti-discrimination regulations, meaning people could be subjected to discrimination based on religion or race in those locations.
Turner told WND the county has stated it will take 22 days for officials to go through the petitions and verify the signatures. But she said she expects the issue to be on the county election ballot in the fall of 2008.
"We are hoping that the nearly 30,000 people who have signed these petitions will get out and vote no," she told WND.
"Let me tell you, when we have nearly 200 volunteers spending their weekends to get petition signatures, we have a much clearer picture of this county and [residents'] expectations than do county officials," she said.
The requirement for the issue to be put on the ballot is 25,001 valid signatures or more. The citizens' group submitted the first round of 15,462 signatures on Feb. 4 as required by the rules. The current total includes those signatures.
"The citizens of Montgomery County are clearly making their voices heard," said Jacobs. "We have found that this issue straddles every demographic and political line. The ease with which the signatures have been obtained and the indignation of the voters demonstrate how isolated the council is from its constituents."
"Instead of representing Montgomery County citizens, Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (D-at large), sponsor of the bill, may well be titled the councilwoman for outside special interests," Turner said. "Trachtenberg has accumulated almost $400,000 in campaign funds, over 60 percent from out of state…"
The citizens organization also said it is reviewing a multitude of reports from its volunteers about harassment from those supporting the transgender campaign in the county.
Officials reported Dana Beyer, a senior policy adviser to Trachtenberg, and other individuals appeared at several petition sites in recent days "to disrupt the collection of signatures, telling volunteers to 'shut up' and getting petition collectors removed from shopping malls by complaining to the management."
Volunteers reported in two cases, "police had to be called by store management in order to stop the harassment of Montgomery County residents who wished to sign the petition."
John Garza, an attorney for the volunteers, said one possible result could be a civil rights lawsuit.
"I am deeply troubled by these intimidation tacics. Such tactics are commonly used by totalitarian governments. There is no place for this in Montgomery County. This undemocratic conduct is especially reprehensible when it is coming from a senior-level employee of the council."
The law was passed by the county council and signed by Leggett to give "gender identity" specially protected status under the county's non-discrimination code, and covers housing, employment, public accommodations and all "facilities."
Original Source