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.
Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery County) (Blade photo by Michael Key)
“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.
Advice
How to cope when a partner gives you the silent treatment
Punishing behavior brings up memories of parent’s mistreatment
Michael,
My wife and I met less than two years ago and we were crazy about each other from the start. We wanted to spend life together so we just went for it. Maybe this wasn’t the most well-thought out decision on either of our parts but we thought that love conquers all.
But lately we’ve been arguing. The stuff we’re fighting about is never such a big deal: chores, or spending, or wanting to do different things on the weekend. But when I don’t want to go along with Michelle’s point of view, she gets angry and shuts down. Sometimes she stops talking to me for as long as a few days.
This is painful for me. My mom used to pull this stunt when I was a kid and she was mad at me. She also cut me off when I came out. We’re still estranged.
Michelle has a whole different take on this. She says I am being “mean” to her (when I don’t go along with what she wants) and this is painful, and she has to “take a break” to cool off.
I know she comes from a volatile family. She has told me there was a lot of screaming in her house, and she barely has a relationship with her parents as a result. So I get that she’s sensitive to conflict.
But I don’t think I’m being mean to her by standing up for what I want — certainly not enough to warrant her giving me the silent treatment.
We got married to have a great life together. We often do but I can’t live with someone who just shuts me out when she’s annoyed with me.
If I became a doormat and went along with everything she wants and never pushed back or complained, maybe she wouldn’t shut down. But I don’t want to do that.
I’d appreciate some ideas to improve the situation. I don’t want a divorce but I also don’t want to keep being mistreated.
Michael replies:
You can think of marriage — or any serious relationship — as a gym where you have ongoing opportunities to become an increasingly resilient person in the face of the ongoing challenges that an intimate relationship poses.
Your task here is to shift your focus toward figuring out how to handle yourself well, even in the awful circumstance of getting the silent treatment.
Michelle is not under an obligation to behave as you’d like her to. You can certainly ask her to stop withdrawing when she’s angry at you. But that doesn’t mean she is going to honor your request.
I well understand that Michelle’s punishing behavior is bringing up painful memories of your mother’s mistreatment. But if she doesn’t change her behavior, you have to find a way to live with Michelle as she is, with as much equanimity as you can muster, for as long as you choose to be married to her. If she does not change and you find her behavior to be unbearable, you can leave.
Every time she shuts down, Michelle is handing you an opportunity to figure out how you, yourself, can deal with feeling hurt and let down, rather than depending on someone else to behave as you’d like her to, or not upset you, or soothe you. Being in charge of your own mood rather than letting someone else press your buttons is a great skill to get better at.
I’m not going focus on what techniques you might use to soothe yourself — that’s a different column (or even better, a number of therapy sessions). That said, knowing that Michelle’s behavior comes from her history might help you to take it less personally. And, simply keeping in mind that living with a difficult spouse is unavoidable and worth getting better at may help you to quiet yourself down.
Another challenge that your marriage is pushing you to work on: Discerning when you can be generous, and when it is important to have a boundary. Of course, I understand that you don’t want to be a doormat by going along with whatever Michelle says and wants. But is it possible that she has a point, in that you could stand to lean more in her direction?
None of us get to have everything the way we want when we are in a relationship (much less in life). Figuring out the interplay between generosity and boundary is complicated. It often involves considering what is important to your partner; and deriving joy from her getting some of what is important to her, not only from your getting what you would like. And of course, it also involves figuring out what is most important to you.
If you set a boundary thoughtfully, because something is important to you, and Michelle doesn’t like it, you’re being handed an opportunity to get better at tolerating disappointment. Being a disappointment to your partner, and being disappointed in your partner, are both unavoidable parts of marriage: We’re all different, and at times will make choices that the other person really does not like.
If we make our decisions from a place of integrity rather than whim, entitlement, anger, or “whose turn it is”, and strive to honor the choices that our partners make from a place of integrity, this often makes the disappointment easier to bear.
Of course, it would be great if Michelle would join you in working to become a more solid and resilient spouse. As I mentioned earlier, you can’t persuade her to do so. But you can certainly tell Michelle what you are working on and ask her to consider how she, too, might use your relationship difficulties as a challenge to grow.
It isn’t easy to have such a conversation without sounding condescending. You are better positioned to do so when you are walking the walk, not just talking the talk. One good rule of thumb is to put you and your partner in the same boat, making it clear that you see the two of you as facing the same challenges, rather than positioning yourself in a superior position. Another is to initiate the conversation when you are both calm, rather than in the middle of a fight or when you’re getting the silent treatment.
One more point: If Michelle is willing, I’d suggest that you propose couples therapy as an opportunity for you two to collaborate on building a consistently loving relationship where neither of you lets your reactivity run the show.
Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].
Electric-vehicle tax credits may have faded earlier this year, but EVs themselves are far from losing their spark. There are more charging stations than ever, battery ranges are longer and more realistic, and automakers have finally figured out that EVs don’t all need to look like geeky science projects or feel like failed beta tests.
Just look at these two compact electrics, which are futuristic, fun and flexible enough for work or play.
HYUNDAI IONIQ 5
$37,000 to $48,000
Range: 245 to 318 miles
0 to 60 mph: 4.5 to 7.4 seconds
Cargo space: 26.3 cu. ft.
PROS: Fast charging. Roomy cabin. Silky-smooth suspension.
CONS: Wide turning radius. Rear wiper not on all trims. Price creep.
After being introduced three years ago, what’s new for the latest Hyundai Ioniq 5? Mostly refinement. Charging is quicker, software is smarter and Hyundai continues to quietly listen to feedback, tweaking ride comfort and usability. Think of it as switching from messy eyeliner to a perfectly sharp wing.
Exterior styling remains one of this EV’s biggest conversation starters. Those pixel-inspired lights, crisp lines and slick hatchback-meets-crossover proportions exude refreshing confidence. There’s no trying to blend in, and that’s the point. Park this Hyundai anywhere and heads will turn.
On the road, the Ioniq 5 prioritizes calm over chaos. Steering is light, the suspension smooths out rough pavement and acceleration feels brisk without being aggressive. Safety tech is plentiful and well-calibrated—adaptive cruise control, lane-centering, blind-spot monitoring—all working together without seeming like a nervous backseat driver. IOW, this ride is supportive, not clingy.
Inside, the user-friendly cabin shines. The flat floor and long wheelbase create a lounge-like atmosphere, with excellent legroom and airy visibility. Seats are well-bolstered and available with eco-friendly materials, and the sliding center console adds flexibility. Cargo space is generous, and the wide windshield makes city driving stress-free. Alas, the rear wiper is only available on select models. Overall, though, I appreciated how everything looks modern without feeling cold.
What makes this Hyundai special is its vibe. An EV that embraces individuality without shouting about it.
Fun fact: The Ioniq’s ultra-fast charging can add hundreds of miles in under 20 minutes—perfect for those who hate waiting almost as much as they hate small talk on awkward first dates.
VOLKSWAGEN ID.4
$46,000 to $59,130
Range: 206 to 291 miles
0 to 60 mph: 4.4 to 7.7 seconds
Cargo space: 30.3 cu. ft.
PROS: Sure handling. Decent range. Good storage.
CONS: Body roll in curves. Fussy infotainment. No frunk.
The latest VW ID.4 focuses on polish. Software updates have fixed earlier frustrations, and overall drivability feels more cohesive. Less “learning curve” and more “hop in and go,” like a dependable bestie who doesn’t overthink things.
Styling-wise, this EV is intentionally inoffensive. Soft curves, friendly lighting and a familiar crossover shape make it approachable. While the ID.4 won’t turn heads like the Ioniq 5, that’s OK. It’s more akin to a classic outfit that always works—timeless, not trendy.
Driving the ID.4 is relaxed and predictable. This SUV prioritizes comfort over thrills, with a suspension tuned for daily commuting and long highway drives. Safety features are comprehensive and reassuring, including excellent lane assistance and collision-prevention systems. It’s the kind of car that quietly has your back, no drama required.
Inside, the ID.4 offers a calm, uncluttered cabin with good space for passengers and cargo alike. Rear-seat legroom is especially strong, making it a solid road-trip companion. The seats are plush, visibility is good and while the infotainment system isn’t the most intuitive, it’s improved enough to be more than tolerable.
The ID.4’s special sauce is balance. It doesn’t try to reinvent the wheel—it just electrifies it.
Fun fact: This is one of the most globally popular EVs, proving that sometimes being universally liked is a strength, not a personality flaw. Think, gold star gay who still surprises you.
Real Estate
Child- and pet-proofing your home for the holidays
It isn’t about being perfect but about being prepared
The holidays are meant to be joyful, cozy, and full of laughter — but if you have young children or pets, they can also feel a little chaotic. Twinkling lights, shiny decorations, guests coming and going, and tables full of tempting food can turn your home into a wonderland of curiosity and mischief. The good news? With a little thoughtful planning, you can keep the holiday magic alive while making your home safer for everyone who lives there.
There’s something oddly comforting about movies where animals go to war with holiday decorations, turning carefully strung lights and perfectly placed ornaments into chaos. Whether it’s a mischievous dog tangled in tinsel or a curious cat launching a full-scale assault on a Christmas tree, these scenes tap into a universal experience for pet owners.
The humor comes from the contrast: the human characters are trying to create warmth, tradition, and picture-perfect cheer, while the animals see the decorations as toys, obstacles, or personal enemies. The resulting destruction — trees tipping over, ornaments shattering, lights blinking out—feels exaggerated but relatable, especially during the already hectic holiday season.
Let’s start with decorations because they tend to be the biggest attraction. Ornaments sparkle, garlands dangle, and everything seems designed to be touched, pulled, or tasted. If you have little ones or pets, consider placing your most fragile ornaments higher on the tree and using shatterproof options on the lower branches. Tinsel and ribbon may look festive, but they can be dangerous if swallowed, so skipping them or keeping them well out of reach is a simple way to reduce risk without sacrificing style.
Holiday lights are another favorite fascination. Before hanging them, take a few minutes to inspect each strand for frayed wires or broken bulbs. Secure cords along walls or behind furniture so they’re harder to grab or chew and unplug them when you leave the house or head to bed. Not only does this help prevent accidents, but it also gives you one less thing to worry about during a busy season.
The Christmas tree itself can become a focal point for exploration. Make sure it’s sturdy and well-anchored so it doesn’t tip if a toddler tugs on a branch or a pet decides to investigate. If you use a real tree, cover the water base since tree water can contain additives that aren’t safe if consumed. For artificial trees, keep an eye out for loose pieces or needles that could become choking hazards.
Food is a big part of holiday celebrations, and it’s also one of the most common sources of trouble. Many traditional treats—like chocolate, grapes, raisins, alcohol, and foods containing xylitol—are dangerous for pets. Keep plates and serving dishes up high, secure the trash can, and gently remind guests not to slip pets or kids “just a little bite” without checking first. For children, be mindful of hard candies, nuts, and small treats that could pose choking risks.
Candles and fireplaces add warmth and charm, but they deserve extra caution. Flameless candles are a wonderful alternative if you want ambiance without worry. If you do use real candles, place them well out of reach and never leave them unattended. Fireplaces should always have a sturdy screen or gate, especially with crawling babies or curious pets nearby.
Holiday gatherings bring wonderful energy into your home, but they can also create new challenges. Doors opening frequently make it easier for pets to slip outside, so consider setting up a quiet, comfortable space where they can relax during busy get-togethers. This can help reduce stress for them and give you peace of mind. For children, stair gates, locked cabinets, and clear boundaries can help prevent accidents when there’s extra excitement in the air.
New toys and gifts are another thing to watch closely. Packaging, twist ties, plastic wrap, and especially button batteries should be cleaned up promptly. These items are easy to overlook in the excitement of gift-opening but can be dangerous if swallowed. Taking a few minutes to tidy up as you go can make a big difference.
Lastly, try to keep routines as steady as possible. The holidays naturally disrupt schedules, but familiar mealtimes, naps, walks, and bedtime rituals help children and pets feel secure. A calmer household often means fewer accidents and a happier experience for everyone.
At the end of the day, child- and pet-proofing your home for the holidays isn’t about being perfect but about being prepared. A few small adjustments can help you relax, enjoy your guests, and focus on what truly matters: creating warm, happy memories with the ones you love. When your home feels safe, the holidays feel even sweeter.
Valerie M. Blake is a licensed Associate Broker in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia with RLAH @properties. Call or text her at 202-246-8602, email her at [email protected] or follow her on Facebook at TheRealst8ofAffairs.
D.C.’s 10 best theater productions of 2025
A look back at the best books of 2025
A dangerous precedent on trans rights in Texas
Top 10 international LGBTQ news stories of 2025
A pledge to keep fighting in 2026
How to cope when a partner gives you the silent treatment
The 25 greatest queer movies of the 21st century so far
Top 10 LGBTQ local news stories of 2025
Kazakh president signs anti-LGBTQ propaganda bill
