Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Gazette Reports on the Appeals Court Opinion

Because the appeal court's opinion just came out, The Gazette had a longish article yesterday, reviewing the gender-identity nondiscrimination case and what the court's decision implies. It starts like this:
A decision by the state's highest court last month on the county's transgender case upheld rules that make it more difficult for groups to put referendum issues on the ballot.

The Court of Appeals issued the 63-page opinion after ruling in September that a referendum proposed by a conservative group seeking to overturn the county's new law that bans discrimination against transgendered people could not go on the Nov. 4 ballot.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Montgomery County Board of Elections erred in saying the group needed signatures from 5 percent of active registered voters. Instead, the elections law requires signatures from 5 percent of all voters, whether active or inactive, thus requiring a greater number of signatures. Inactive voters hadn't voted in more than three election cycles.

In addition, the court ruled, the elections board should not have simply checked the signatures of those who signed the petition to see if they were registered voters, but also should have checked to see if the signatures were valid. A valid signature has a person's full name and complete address. Transgender decision tightens referendum rules

Skipping down, I liked the way The Gazette described the controversy:
A group called Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government claimed the law would allow men to enter women's restrooms and changing areas and sought to overturn it.

I notice that this has not happened.
"The referendum process is drastic, and the Court of Appeals has said repeatedly the rules must be strictly complied with," said Natalie Chin, an attorney for gay activist group Lambda Legal who worked on the case.

"What the Court of Appeals did is say the referendum process cannot be taken lightly, and if you're going to change a duly-enacted law you have to strictly comply with the law."

"We think it''s a big loss for democracy, for Montgomery County and for privacy and safety for women," Ruth M. Jacobs, president of Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government, said in September.

You would think it would be embarrassing, wouldn't you? This law has been in effect now for nearly three months, and there is no loss of privacy, nothing dangerous for women. Before the law passed they could scream and whine that such-and-such was going to happen, but it didn't happen. The only man-in-the-ladies-room we have seen here is the one the Citizens for Responsible Whatever sent into the ladies showers at Rio as a publicity stunt before the law was in effect. Oh, and a foreign guy who helped his wife with the baby while she tried on clothes at Kohls.
But Chin said the appellate decision strengthens democracy.

"It doesn't break new ground. But it is nice to have a newer case on the books to strengthen the idea you have to follow election law very strictly," she said.

Jonathan S. Shurberg, an attorney for Equality Maryland, said the county's charter, state election law and the Court of Appeals' previous rulings made it clear that Citizens for Responsible Government needed more signatures and had not gathered them properly.

Shurberg had argued that the county's charter, state law and a previous Court of Appeals ruling require that petitioners meet the higher number.

"You should err on the side of allowing people to vote, but this wasn't about voting," he said. "This was about a referendum and the signatures."

This can be a good exercise in democracy. Maybe it's unfair to make referendum petition signers use the exact name that they used when they registered to vote. Maybe the law is too strict. In that case, our elected representatives are fully empowered to change the law. If it's unfair, throw it out, re-write it, make it legal for Roberts to sign as Bobs and husbands to sign for their wives. The law needs to be enforced as it's written, and this one is written to be strict.

I don't see any stampede at the state or county level to re-write it.

This was a complicated case that was finally came down to the ineptitude of the county Board of Elections. They told the shower-nuts they had enough signatures, and one, they counted all kinds of invalid signatures as valid, and two, they told them they needed the wrong number of signatures in the first place.

To my mind the real issue was misrepresentation of the law to potential petition-signers. I myself heard them say "Would you like to sign a petition to keep men out of the ladies room?" The law itself is pages long, the county's version online has all kinds of strikethroughs and brackets and special marks to show what was added and what was changed, and when. The ordinary citizen can't wade through that to determine what an "accommodation" is, or a "facility." It is not right to ask people to sign a legal petition and lie to them about that it is. But there is apparently nothing in the law that says you have to be truthful with people in getting them to sign.

35 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You would think it would be embarrassing, wouldn't you? This law has been in effect now for nearly three months, and there is no loss of privacy, nothing dangerous for women."

You apparently aren't embarassed to have gone all out to endorse a law that has no effect. Has anyone been denied a pizza or DVD before the law was passed and now found they've been able to obtain them?

Of course not. The point is to get the government to endorse a dubious notion- that you are whatever gender you feel like.

January 06, 2009 11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"To my mind the real issue was misrepresentation of the law to potential petition-signers."

Actually, this was not your real issue. You don't think democracy has any business judging what kinds of discrimination is acceptable. Only people who think homosexuality can have a vote in your world.

That's because you know the public doesn't support you.

January 06, 2009 11:22 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, assuming both these comments are from the same person, "the public" doesn't decide what's right and wrong, and "the public" is not always well informed or correct. That's why in America we elect leaders. Those leaders can learn about the issues, their staffs can gather information including what "the public" wants, and they can make decisions based on all that. "The public" will want what the uninformed majority wants. "The public" in this country is not Baptist or Mormon, but tolerates those religions, "the public" accepts differences among people to the extent that they will tolerate complete irrationality as long as its intentions appear to be good. "The public" is not well informed about issues of sex and gender, largely because a religious minority has imposed censorship on communication on the topic. "The public" accepts that censorship good-naturedly but would rather be reasonable than obedient to authority, especially invisible authority in the sky.

As for your other point, if the law is unnecessary as you say then fine, it doesn't hurt anything either, and opposing it doesn't make any more sense than supporting it.

I don't think it is right to discriminate against someone just because of the kind of person they are, when their difference does no harm. That just seems like common sense to me, but some people find freedom offensive. You and I will simply disagree on that one.

JimK

January 07, 2009 7:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""the public" doesn't decide what's right and wrong, and "the public" is not always well informed or correct"

We aren't talking about right and wrong. We are talking about legal and illegal. Governmental leaders don't decide right and wrong any more than the public does. Government simply faciltates peaceful co-existence. It isn't a guarantor of fulfillment.

"As for your other point, if the law is unnecessary as you say then fine, it doesn't hurt anything either, and opposing it doesn't make any more sense than supporting it."

Unnecessary laws are a burden, especially in an area like this where proof of a violation is indirect. That places a burden on citizens to arrange their conduct to avoid suspicion.

"I don't think it is right to discriminate against someone just because of the kind of person they are, when their difference does no harm. That just seems like common sense to me, but some people find freedom offensive. You and I will simply disagree on that one."

We don't disagree with the first statement. The second blurs the definition of freedom.

January 07, 2009 9:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Based on how the Court of Appeals ruled on the major items in this case, it is clear that Mr. Jonathan Shurberg did an EXCELLENT job defending Bill 23-07 and the people it protects.

A number of people in Montgomery County (including myself) owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude.

Also due thanks are the many volunteers who checked and counted signatures, some 10,000 of which we now know are invalid.

Thank you Mr. Shurberg, EQMD, and all the others devoted to seeing this important anti-discrimination bill through.

Peace,

Cynthia

January 07, 2009 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cynthia

Have you noticed any change in discrimination in the county as a result of the bill?

January 07, 2009 11:37 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

“This can be a good exercise in democracy […] If it's unfair, throw it out, re-write it, make it legal for Roberts to sign as Bobs and husbands to sign for their wives. The law needs to be enforced as it's written, and this one is written to be strict.”

And if that doesn’t work, Michelle Turner and Theresa Rickman can gather signatures for a ballot measure that says that Michelle Turner and Theresa Rickman are legally allowed to sign for every citizen in Montgomery County.

In fact, in the effort to gather signatures for the illegal measure, they can tell people that they’re helping to prevent kittens from being smashed with hammers.

And if anyone complains after the fact…

"If there was a misunderstanding, it was on the part of the individual signing the petition," CRG spokeswoman Michelle Turner said.

January 07, 2009 12:57 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

JimK: "I don't think it is right to discriminate against someone just because of the kind of person they are, when their difference does no harm. That just seems like common sense to me, but some people find freedom offensive. You and I will simply disagree on that one."

Stunning: “We don't disagree with the first statement. The second blurs the definition of freedom.”

How dare Jim agree to disagree with you without your permission!

Why, the nerve of some people...

January 07, 2009 1:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the noive of some people is amazing!

January 07, 2009 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you noticed any change in discrimination in the county as a result of the bill?

What I've noticed is that there are no crime reports of women or children turning up dead, or reporting being "flashed," in public restrooms or lockerrooms as a result of this law being in effect. Have you, Anon?

January 07, 2009 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never said there would be so I don't know why you're asking me.

You know as well as I there was no need for such a law in MC. It's just part of the gay agenda.

January 07, 2009 2:46 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Why that’s terrible Aunt Bea, if women and children aren’t turning up dead, how will anyone ever know how dangerous this non-discrimination bill actually is?

What’s next? Reports of people finding jobs? Catching cabs? Spending money? A prosperous econo…oh that would be the worst, perish the thought.

January 07, 2009 2:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never said there would be so I don't know why you're asking me.

I have no idea how many anonymi comment on this blog, but if you continue to post comments as "Anonymous," your comments and all the other anonymi's comments will be appear to be coming from the same person. There's no way for any reader to separate the other anonymis' comments from yours unless you create your own name and stick to it. That's why I'm asking you.

ROFL Emproph

January 07, 2009 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" It's just part of the gay agenda."

I have a cold so the Gay Agenda this week has mostly consisted of going to work, then coming home, eating dinner and going to bed.

January 07, 2009 4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AnonBigot... stop whining!

And as for the Gay Agenda... Do you have a signed copy?

Again, stop with the wha-wha-wha!! It would be nice to see some maturity from the bigot side.

January 07, 2009 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What was I "whining" about DerrickMoron?

Jim was whining about people lying to obtain votes for placing a referendum. As far as I'm concerned, so what? The referendum has no effect unless voters pass it and if someone lied to have it put on the ballot, it should be easy enough to demonstrate that, which would sink the ballot's chances.

Truth is, what Jim is whining about is not a verifiable fact but an opinion. TTF expressed their opinion about the effect passage of the law would have. They could be wrong but it's still an opinion.

Funny thing is, much like the Presidential election, even though TTF's side won, they still can't stop whining about the other side.

They live for it.

January 07, 2009 11:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What was I "whining" about

You were whining about Governmental leaders don't decide right and wrong any more than the public does. Government simply faciltates peaceful co-existence. It isn't a guarantor of fulfillment.

No, but it's a guarantor of equal rights for all Americans to pursue their own fulfillment, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. When there's a dispute, we go to the courts for their esteemed opinions. And now you're the one whining about unnecessary laws. Just because you don't need a law to protect your rights, doesn't mean others don't.

We all remember, Anon, when Judge Williams decided your group might need some of your rights protected, you couldn't stop crowing about how wonderful the court system is.

Get over your hypocritical self.

January 08, 2009 7:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As happens so often, you ask someone on the TTF blog a question and somebody else answers.

"You were whining about Governmental leaders don't decide right and wrong any more than the public does. Government simply faciltates peaceful co-existence. It isn't a guarantor of fulfillment."

Look, man, this is statement about the role of government. If that constitutes "whining", I'm part of a long line of whiners from Aristotle to Jefferson and beyond.

"No, but it's a guarantor of equal rights for all Americans to pursue their own fulfillment, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else."

Well, yes, but the unnecesary law in question is not about guaranteeing anyone's freedom to pursue fulfillment. It tries to guarantee success regardless of one's approach. No one has the right to force everyone else to conduct business with them, they only have the right to be free from governmental interference in this pursuit.

"When there's a dispute, we go to the courts for their esteemed opinions."

When the law is broken. You simply created a new unnecessary category.

"And now you're the one whining about unnecessary laws. Just because you don't need a law to protect your rights, doesn't mean others don't."

What I was pointing out is that transgenders didn't need this law in MC. They have plenty of opportunity and the scenarios of them being shut out from public life here in MC that TTF cited as justifications for the law is a lie. Jim whined that CRG lied to get signers but they were merely speculating about the effect the proposed law would have. Those who pushed for this law were true liars because they were claiming a situation existed when it didn't.

"We all remember, Anon, when Judge Williams decided your group might need some of your rights protected, you couldn't stop crowing about how wonderful the court system is."

Judge Williams was ruling about what government can do. Government is the one that can violate constitutional rights not individuals. The Constitution is a document forming a government not a rule book to help us all get along.

"Get over your hypocritical self."

You've got a plank in your eye, buddy.

January 08, 2009 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

law in question is not about guaranteeing anyone's freedom to pursue fulfillment

That's exactly what it's about. You cannot pursue fulfillment when a taxi won't pick you up when you hail it because of discrimination, or when you can't get a job you are highly qualified for because of discrimination.

Judge Williams was ruling about what government can do. Government is the one that can violate constitutional rights not individuals.

and

people lying to obtain votes for placing a referendum. As far as I'm concerned, so what?

Judge Williams' ruling pointed out MCPS might have violated some Constitutional rights. But Liberty Council apparently determined MCPS did not violate any, otherwise they would have continued to pursue the case for CRWhiners like you who cry "religious discrimination" over optional sex ed classes and say "so what?" about laws governing the gathering of petition signatures to overturn unanimously approved legislation.

No court has ever ruled in CRW's favor that there was "religious discrimination" due to the sex ed revisions. However, the Maryland Court of Appeals did find that the CRW violated Maryland State laws governing the collection of petition signatures and properly threw out their illegal attempt to overturn a duly approved law.

Accept reality and get over it.

January 08, 2009 10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" Troll...
Tiresome, inane, sophomoric whining on your part continues to emphasize your true intent (covered up, as it is, by verbose rantings): you favor legal discrimination against any people who do not meet your particular standards of behavior or ethics or morality.("You don't think democracy has any business judging what kinds of discrimination is acceptable. Only people who think homosexuality (sic.) can have a vote in your world.","You know as well as I there was no need for such a law in MC. It's just part of the gay agenda.)
All of your pseudo-legalistic rants and constant usage of emotion-laden words cannot obscure that fact. Just be honest for once - admit that you favor the "right" for people in this country, supported by law, to discriminate against people they do not like.
Others here already recognize your particular "agenda" so you are, as usual, just blowing in the wind.
Please also spare us from the often-expressed plea on your part: "I am not the Anonymous to whom you refer". Who are you then?

Diogenes

January 08, 2009 10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"However, the Maryland Court of Appeals did find that the CRW violated Maryland State laws governing the collection of petition signatures and properly threw out their illegal attempt to overturn a duly approved law."

They did no such thing. They ruled the BOE improperly certified the referendum. They didn't rule that CRG acted illegally.

"Just be honest for once - admit that you favor the "right" for people in this country, supported by law, to discriminate against people they do not like."

I think the law should be silent not, as you say, support any discrimination.

I do think people should have the right to discriminate against those they don't like and, indeed, they do. That's a general principle only to be overruled in extreme circumstances such as the situation blacks faced in the mid-20th century and, even then, should be seen as a temporary measure to restore social balance. Gays experience no such insurmountable barriers.

January 08, 2009 11:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous makes clear that he defends the right of the powerful to oppress the less powerful. He calls this "a right to discriminate against people they don't like" or "freedom of association" or "limited governrment" or "gays never experienced such discrimination" or whatever. It remains the oppression of the powerful over the less powerful.

My question again, to you, is this in fact, as I suspect, the central tenet of American conservatism?

rrjr

January 08, 2009 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: You have the absolute right to discriminate against anyone who offends you or whom you do not like in your PRIVATE world; it's when you want to discriminate in the public arena - especially by denying rights and protections to citizens who attempt to access public accomodations (many of which receive particular tax benefits which we, American citizens, indirectly pay for)that you do NOT have the right to discriminate. I was sure you understood this basic concept of our democratic society (I know my 9th graders did when they took Civics)but I have, once again, been proven wrong. Work at understanding this fundamental human rights concept - it will make you a better person.
RT

January 08, 2009 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And of course, Anonymous, as a gay person, you can personally speak to this issue? (quote: "Gays experience no such insurmountable barriers.")?
RT

January 08, 2009 6:02 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Stunning: “I do think people should have the right to discriminate against those they don't like”

Great, then for the umpteenth time, admit that you’re against the ENTIRE non-discrimination code, including the religious provision.

January 08, 2009 9:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have the absolute right to discriminate against anyone who offends you or whom you do not like in your PRIVATE world; it's when you want to discriminate in the public arena - especially by denying rights and protections to citizens who attempt to access public accomodations (many of which receive particular tax benefits which we, American citizens, indirectly pay for)that you do NOT have the right to discriminate."

You fool. Public and private discrimination is perfectly legal against most people you don't like. You may decide not to do engage in business with people for any reason you wish. You might not like their hairstyle, their eye color, their height, their whiny voice, whatever. It's only discrimination if you do it to gays because they've manipulated society into giving them special rights. It's part of the GAY AGENDA.

"Great, then for the umpteenth time, admit that you’re against the ENTIRE non-discrimination code, including the religious provision."

For the hundredth time, emslob, I think it's fine if you want to discriminate against me because you disagree with my beliefs.

Your loss.

January 08, 2009 9:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have the absolute right to discriminate against anyone who offends you or whom you do not like in your PRIVATE world; it's when you want to discriminate in the public arena - especially by denying rights and protections to citizens who attempt to access public accomodations (many of which receive particular tax benefits which we, American citizens, indirectly pay for)that you do NOT have the right to discriminate."

You fool. Public and private discrimination is perfectly legal against most people you don't like. You may decide not to do engage in business with people for any reason you wish. You might not like their hairstyle, their eye color, their height, their whiny voice, whatever. It's only discrimination if you do it to gays because they've manipulated society into giving them special rights. It's part of the GAY AGENDA.

"Great, then for the umpteenth time, admit that you’re against the ENTIRE non-discrimination code, including the religious provision."

For the hundredth time, emslob, I think it's fine if you want to discriminate against me because you disagree with my beliefs.

Your loss.

January 08, 2009 9:36 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Doesn’t answer my question.

For the umpteenth time plus one. Do you support the repeal of the ENTIRE non-discrimination code, including the religious provision?

January 08, 2009 10:21 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

And P.S. my little Christian waif, you’re supposed to call it the “homosexual agenda.” It has the added benefit of implying that our humanity is nothing more than a mindless sex act.

January 08, 2009 10:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emproph said:

“And P.S. my little Christian waif, you’re supposed to call it the “homosexual agenda.”

The automatic substitution of “gay” with “homosexual” was removed in version 3.1 of the Anonymous Troll software after the American Family Association’s embarrassing “Tyson Gay / Tyson Homosexual” incident. ( http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/07/christian_sites_ban_on_g_word.html )

With this change, they figured it would be less likely for folks to realize these anonymous posts were coming from a heuristic text processing algorithm running on a server in the AFA basement.

Peace,

Cynthia

January 09, 2009 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: you are a thick-headed idiot! You said: "You may decide not to do engage in business with people for any reason you wish. You might not like their hairstyle, their eye color, their height, their whiny voice, whatever. It's only discrimination if you do it to gays because they've manipulated society into giving them special rights."
First statement: Exactly - if you decide that you cannot conduct public business without prejudice or discrimination as a public accommodation, you can decide not to be in business at all.
Second statement: The law does not prohibit your not liking whiny voices, hairstyle, height or any other physical characteristic. The law merely says you cannot discriminate against people based on legally defined characteristics if you have a license or permission to service the public.
Third statement: You are really feeling under attack, aren't you? Such childish statements as this show that you are willfully ignorant, bigoted, religiously brain-washed, psychotic, or in need of psychiatric treatment. It might also say more than you care to acknowledge to others...your own closeted homosexuality, combined with an unhealthy public persona. See #2.
You are a hateful person...but you know what? We forgive you, recognizing that you are a human sinner. Remember: what goes around comes around.
RT

January 09, 2009 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A day without bigoted comments from Anonymous is like a day without...?

January 09, 2009 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A day without bigoted comments from Anonymous is like a day without...?

January 09, 2009 11:58 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

“With this change, they figured it would be less likely for folks to realize these anonymous posts were coming from a heuristic text processing algorithm running on a server in the AFA basement.”

I’m sorry, you lost me at “they figured.”

January 09, 2009 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's the Turing test. Can we tell the difference between anonymous and a marginally clever anti-lgbt machine program. He's terribly predictable, in a GIGO sort of way.

January 09, 2009 5:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home