Why Was the Nondiscrimination Bill Derailed?

The Maryland Politics blog at the Baltimore Sun has been following the insider stuff going on with the state's gender identity nondiscrimination bill. The bill passed easily in the House of Delegates and was sent to the Senate, where it was siderailed to a dead-end committee, making sure it will not be voted on.

Why was this one bill chosen for this treatment, and no other? One theory is that this was itself an instance of anti-transgender discrimination. The competing theory is the the Senate is getting even with the House for not passing the marriage bill.

The Senate president's decision to sideline House-backed legislation to prevent the discrimination of transgendered people has infuriated activists and some lawmakers.

On Saturday, the House of Delegates voted 86-52 in favor of the bill, shipping it to the Senate before the Monday crossover deadline. It was one of 94 bills that arrived at the Senate doors over the weekend -- and the only one to land in the Rules Committee rather than in a panel that can move legislation to the full chamber.

"It goes there to die or because it was late," said a steaming Del. Joseline Pena-Melnyk, who sponsored the anti-discrimination legislation. "My bill was not late." Transgender discrimination bill subject to discrimination, some say

If you've followed the story you know that the deadline was set and the House made sure to send the bill to the Senate on time.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller offered his take yesterday: "At this point in time I’d say the chances of passage of that bill are next to none." He added that his chamber "spent a lot of time" on "important social issues" only to see them die in the House, an apparent reference to the same-sex marriage legislation.

Miller did not support the right of same-sex couples to marry but, knowing a majority of senators wanted the bill passed, labored to move it along to the House of Delegates. Bill leaders in the House did not secure enough votes for passage and marooned the bill in a committee.

Yes, it was lame the way the marriage bill got undermined in the House. Delegates favored marriage equality, but some were picked off by religious groups in their districts that did not want to use the word "marriage" for same-sex unions, and the majority was split. That debate should have been resolved before the bill advanced to a vote, but unfortunately some important questions were not addressed sufficiently as it moved through committees and was debated on the floor.

On the other hand, that bill has nothing at all to do with this one.

Gay-rights group Equality Maryland and Pena-Melnyk called Miller's move on the anti-discrimination bill unfair, comparing his tactics to the bullying that transgendered people can face.

"The way this bill is being handled, with such an iron fist, it's like a big bully," Pena-Melnyk said. "It's absolutely disrespectful and gross. It's marginalizing a small group of people and telling them they don't count."

Pena-Melnyk noted she waited more than an hour yesterday to talk with Miller, a fellow Prince George's County Democrat, to no avail.

In a release this afternoon, Equality Maryland Executive Director Morgan Meneses-Sheets wrote, "Here's the irony -- a bill designed to eliminate discrimination is now be subject to discriminatory procedure."

If the bill had gone to a vote, it would have passed, just as it did in the House. The people of the state and their representatives agree that it is reasonable to prevent discrimination against people on the basis of their gender identity. Most agree the bill should have been stronger, but it was a lot better than nothing.

The Rules Committee has met at least once since the transgender anti-discrimination bill was sent there, but it has not taken up the issue. "It's all up to the president," said Sen. Kathy Klausmeier, the Baltimore County Democrat who chairs Rules.

Asked whether it was unusual to assign a timely bill to her committee, Klausmeier said she didn't know, but then later conceded it was.

Politicians! Of course it was unusual. This is not the way business is conducted at all. This is what you do when you want to kill a piece of legislation that you know is going to be enacted into law otherwise.

"I'm trying to work with the president to get it out," she said. If Rules does vote out the bill, it would move to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, which could hold a hearing on it, vote and send it to the full chamber.

Sen. Jamie Raskin, who sits on Judicial Proceedings and supports the bill, offered a theory on what's happening:

"I think the president perceives the disappointment of the Senate in the House's failure to pass the marriage bill," the Montgomery County Democrat said. "There is lingering disappointment."

He added: "We shouldn't express our disappointment in the failure of one major civil rights bill by killing another one."

Oh, okay, there's the other explanation. This isn't an expression of prejudice against transgender people, it is the Senate's way of going neener-neener to the House for not passing the marriage bill that the Senate sent to them last month.

Great, just great.