Living

Maryland Senate kills trans rights bill

More disappointment for activists; Miller blamed for failures

Published

15 years ago

April 14, 2011

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.

Up Next

Delaware approves civil unions

Don't Miss

National news in brief: April 15

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

Real Estate

Factors to consider when hiring an interior designer

It’s essential to have confidence in the professionals you engage

Published

1 day ago

September 27, 2026

StatePoint

(Photo courtesy of StatePoint)

(StatePoint) Ready to redesign your home? Whether you have only a vague notion of how you want your spaces to look or a very specific vision, relying on the expertise of a professional can help you bring your dream home to life. Before choosing and hiring an interior designer, though, be sure to take the following factors into consideration:

Style: Identify your style. Is it boho chic? Industrial? Maximalist? Many designers have their own signature look and preferences. It’s best to understand what vibe you want first, then search for a designer who aligns with that style.

Past client projects: One of the best ways to know whether a particular designer is the right fit for you is to review their past client projects. Ask to see their portfolio or review their finished projects on their website or socials. Also, take a look at reviews and testimonials to ensure their previous customers walked away satisfied with a job well done.

Budget: Communicate your budget in advance of work to confirm that you and your designer are on the same page financially. Your decorator will need this ballpark figure to get a handle on the scope of the project and to make design decisions accordingly. You should also use this conversation to understand their rates so you can decide whether you want to move forward.

Preferred vendors: It’s important that the interior designer you choose has preferred vendors that they work with. These are partners they’ve built strong relationships with that provide the same first-rate experience they do, and have streamlined processes in place. “A home renovation has so many moving parts. That’s why we try to take the hassle out of the process for designers and homeowners alike,” says Katie Zess, senior marketing manager and director of Renewal by Andersen’s Interior Designer Loyalty Program.

Through the loyalty program, the full-service window and door replacement division of Andersen Corporation offers their program members exclusive access and rewards, including a “designer discount” they can share with their clients. Renewal by Andersen also offers designers a dedicated point of contact to ensure a smooth process that’s customized for your project from start to finish. To learn more, visit renewalbyandersen.com.

Before you begin your home renovation, it’s essential to have confidence in the professionals you hire. Be sure your interior designer has fostered partnerships that will streamline your redesign, and that their goals and budget aligns with yours.

Real Estate

The LGBTQ real estate map is being redrawn

Affordability, higher mortgage rates reshaping where we choose to call home

Published

2 days ago

September 27, 2026

Scott Helms

LGBTQ buyers are looking beyond Palm Springs and other popular queer destinations these days when searching for a forever home. (Photo by photojohn830/Bigstock)

For decades, the map of LGBTQ+ America was relatively easy to recognize.

New York. San Francisco. Los Angeles. Palm Springs. Provincetown. Fort Lauderdale and Wilton Manors.

These communities became LGBTQ+ destinations because they offered something that wasn’t always easy to find elsewhere: visibility, acceptance, community and the freedom to live openly.

But that map is changing.

Today’s LGBTQ+ homebuyers are navigating a housing market defined by high prices, elevated mortgage rates and affordability challenges. At the same time, remote and hybrid work, retirement and the growth of LGBTQ+ communities beyond traditional destinations are giving buyers more choices about where to live.

Increasingly, the question isn’t simply, “Where are the most LGBTQ-friendly places to live?”

It’s also: “Where can I find community and afford the life I want?”

That shift may become one of the defining LGBTQ+ real estate trends of the coming decade.

Affordability Is Changing the Conversation

For many buyers, the biggest issue in today’s housing market is simple: the monthly payment.

The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was 6.95% in mid-September, compared with 6.26% a year earlier, according to Freddie Mac.

Meanwhile, the median price of an existing U.S. home reached $429,100 in August, according to the National Association of Realtors.

The combination of elevated home prices and higher borrowing costs has changed what many Americans can afford—and where they can afford it.

Some buyers are purchasing smaller homes or condominiums. Others are moving farther from major urban centers. Still others are reconsidering expensive markets entirely.

For LGBTQ+ buyers, this is helping broaden the definition of an LGBTQ+-friendly place to call home.

LGBTQ+ Buyers Have More Choices

A generation ago, relocating away from a major city or established gay neighborhood could sometimes mean sacrificing access to a visible LGBTQ+ community.

That’s increasingly less true.

Traditional LGBTQ+ destinations such as Palm Springs, Fort Lauderdale and Wilton Manors, San Francisco, New York and Provincetown remain important centers of LGBTQ+ life. But today, LGBTQ+ buyers can also find established or growing communities in cities across the country.

Places such as Minneapolis, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Atlanta and the Tampa Bay area are among the markets attracting buyers who may be looking for a different balance of housing costs, lifestyle and community.

The goal isn’t necessarily to find the cheapest house.

It’s to find the right combination of affordability, LGBTQ+ community, lifestyle, employment opportunities, healthcare, culture and quality of life.

Remote and hybrid work have expanded those possibilities for some buyers. If a job no longer requires being in an expensive employment center five days a week, the geographic search for a home can become considerably larger.

That can make communities that once seemed impractical suddenly worth considering.

Retirement Is Redrawing the Map, Too

Retirement is another important part of the changing LGBTQ+ real estate landscape.

As more Americans reach retirement age, LGBTQ+ retirees are considering where they want to spend the next chapter of their lives. Housing costs, taxes, healthcare, climate and proximity to airports, restaurants and cultural activities all play a role.

But LGBTQ+ retirees may have additional questions.

Will I feel comfortable living openly?

Is there an LGBTQ+ community nearby?

Can I find LGBTQ+-affirming healthcare?

Will I have opportunities to build a social network as I get older?

Those considerations can make choosing a retirement destination particularly personal.

Palm Springs and Fort Lauderdale/Wilton Manors remain well-known LGBTQ+ retirement destinations. But retirees are also exploring smaller cities and communities across the Southeast, Midwest and other regions where housing costs and lifestyles can look very different.

For many, the search is becoming less about moving to a famous gay destination and more about finding a place where community, lifestyle and affordability intersect.

Buyers Finally Have More Leverage

There is another significant change in today’s housing market: buyers have regained some negotiating power.

The National Association of Realtors reported 1.62 million existing homes for sale in August, up 5.9% from a year earlier. That represents approximately 4.9 months of housing supply, the highest level in more than a decade.

Realtor.com also reported that 20.4% of active listings had experienced a price reduction in August.

That’s a very different environment from the pandemic-era housing market, when buyers in many communities faced bidding wars, waived inspections and offers well above asking price.

Depending on the market, today’s buyer may have more time to evaluate a property and greater opportunity to negotiate price, repairs, closing costs or other concessions.

But there is an important caveat: there is no single national housing market.

Conditions can vary dramatically from one city—or even one neighborhood—to another. Some markets remain competitive, while others have considerably more inventory and negotiating room.

That’s one reason local expertise matters.

Sellers Need a Different Strategy

The changing market also has implications for LGBTQ+ homeowners considering selling.

Strategies that worked several years ago may not work today.

Buyers are highly sensitive to monthly payments, and an overpriced home can quickly be passed over when competing properties are available.

Sellers should pay close attention not only to recent comparable sales but also to homes currently competing for the same buyer.

Condition matters, too.

Repairs, landscaping, staging and professional photography can make a meaningful difference when buyers have more choices. Pricing correctly from the beginning has also become increasingly important.

More Than 30 Years Serving the LGBTQ+ Community

One part of buying or selling a home hasn’t changed: the importance of working with a real estate professional who understands your priorities.

For more than 30 years, GayRealEstate.com has served the LGBTQ+ community, connecting buyers and sellers with LGBTQ+ and allied real estate professionals throughout the United States.

Over that time, the GayRealEstate.com network has supported more than $2 billion in real estate sales and more than 55,000 transactions.

Behind those numbers are thousands of people making one of life’s most personal decisions: where to call home.

For LGBTQ+ buyers, that conversation can involve much more than bedrooms, bathrooms and price per square foot. It can include community, acceptance, healthcare, family, retirement, lifestyle and the ability to live openly.

An experienced LGBTQ+ or allied real estate professional can understand why those considerations belong in the real estate conversation.

Finding Home in a Changing America

The 2026 housing market presents real challenges.

Mortgage rates remain elevated. Home prices are high. Affordability continues to strain buyers across much of the country.

But there are also signs of a more balanced market. Inventory has increased. Price reductions have become more common. Buyers in many markets have regained negotiating power.

And for LGBTQ+ Americans, something else has changed: there are more places to consider calling home.

The next great LGBTQ+ destination doesn’t necessarily need the country’s largest Pride celebration or its most famous gay neighborhood.

It could be a smaller city with a growing LGBTQ+ community, attainable housing, good healthcare, strong cultural amenities and a quality of life that leaves room for travel, retirement or simply enjoying the home you’ve worked hard to own.

Ultimately, today’s LGBTQ+ real estate search increasingly comes down to three questions:

Where can I afford the life I want?

Where will I find my community?

And where will I feel at home?

The answers are becoming more varied—and that’s helping redraw the map of LGBTQ+ America.

Scott Helms is with GayRealEstate.com.

GayRealEstate.com has served the LGBTQ+ community for more than 30 years, connecting LGBTQ+ homebuyers and sellers with LGBTQ+ and allied real estate professionals across the United States. Its network has supported more than $2 billion in real estate sales and more than 55,000 transactions.

Advice

I’m 66, he’s 27. Is it love or am I being played?

What to do when your friends don’t trust your boyfriend

Published

2 days ago

September 27, 2026

Michael Radkowsky

Dear Michael,

I’m 66, Peter is 27. I’m retired, financially comfortable. He’s a grad student.

We met last summer at the beach and started dating. Now we’re living together. I want this to be forever, and Peter says he does too.

The problem: Some of my friends are telling me that Peter is taking me for a ride.

I know all the cliches about older gay men thinking they’re in a loving relationship when the truth is they’re just some young guy’s sugar daddy. But I don’t feel old. And I think I have a grip on reality.

I do support Peter financially now, but he is eventually going to have a job. And if I didn’t pay for things, there’s no way he could share my life in terms of travel, dining out, etc. I want to have fun with him and am happy to foot the bill.

My friends say there’s no way he could be attracted to anything but my money. But I take great care of myself and look good. We don’t have the greatest sex life but I think it’s pretty hot. Peter says he is attracted to older guys.

And there’s much more to our relationship than sex. Despite the age difference, I think we are kindred spirits, and Peter says he feels the same. We both like travel, talking about politics, have similar taste in books and movies and TV shows. Lots of common interests.

I can deal with the age/money criticisms, but there’s some other stuff I’m more worried about.

One of my friends says he saw Peter making out with someone much younger over the summer. That worries me. I asked Peter about it and he said it wasn’t true.

Peter does go out, solo, because he can stay up a lot later than I want to. My party-till-dawn days are over. He says he’s just dancing and hanging out with friends. I want to believe him.

One night he didn’t come home and it unsettled me. He told me it just got too late so he crashed at a friend’s place. I thought of asking the friend about it but I didn’t want to seem like I was spying on Peter, and I also was afraid that the friend would say this didn’t happen. If it didn’t, then what? Do I break up with him for lying and cheating? I really don’t want to be old and alone. I can’t tell if my friends are making me paranoid or if I am being played.

Michael replies:

Obviously, I can’t know if Peter is telling you the truth or not. But I can give you some pointers on dealing with trust in a relationship. The main person to focus on trusting is yourself.

Do you trust your own sense of whether or not Peter is being honest with you? If not: What would it take for you to do so? Could you let yourself see things that you are currently not wanting to let yourself see? What is now stopping you from seeing him accurately?

You describe many ways in which you think the two of you are compatible. How about in terms of values? Do you respect Peter’s character? Can you get a good read on whether he is just telling you what you want to hear in order to stay in the relationship, or giving you an honest representation of where he really stands?

I understand that you’re afraid of finding out that Peter is lying to you, and that you don’t want to have to deal with ending the relationship. Given the possible ramifications, that makes sense. But do you want to let your fear stop you from keeping your eyes open?

When we decide to see things not as they are, but as we wish they were, or tell ourselves that what we see isn’t what we’re seeing, we end up getting hurt. And we do a great disservice to ourselves by discrediting our own internal witness, making it difficult to trust both ourselves and other people.

Only you can decide which would be preferable: Living with someone whom you don’t trust to be honest with you, or being alone.

In considering this possibility, keep in mind that none of us have a guarantee that we won’t be hurt in our relationships. In fact, it’s pretty much certain that at times we will be. Partners do break each other’s hearts, sometimes deliberately, sometimes not. That in itself is no reason to end a relationship.

But being with someone who is purposely deceiving you doesn’t sound that appealing.

Our relationship difficulties often give us possibilities to grow. Your fears about Peter’s infidelity are an opportunity for you two to have some conversations about how important you each think honesty is in a relationship; and what risks you are willing to take in order to have an honest relationship.

People are often afraid to speak the truth because of the possible consequences. But if you don’t speak up, you can easily wind up in a hollowed-out relationship where neither of you is willing to address what is really going on with each of you. That is the opposite of intimacy.

And, having a standard where each of you is forthcoming would avoid the minefield of a distrustful relationship where one of you is the detective and one of you is the suspect. That dynamic creates an imbalanced relationship and often leads to the watched partner wanting to get away with things.

Bottom line: Are each of you interested enough in an intimate relationship to be consistently honest with each other, even if your partner may not like what you say? And to do your best to respond thoughtfully to your partner’s honesty, even when he tells you something that you do not want to hear?

Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C., Maryland, Virginia, New York, and all PSYPACT states. 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].