'Coed showers' election urged

Arguments have been submitted to Maryland's courts urging judges to allow the estimated 900,000 voters in Montgomery County to decide whether they want to install in their laws special new protections for individuals claiming "gender identity" issues.

The legal brief comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, which is supporting a group called Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government in its battle to prevent the imposition of the protections, already adopted by county officials.

"The right of citizens to have their votes count on a significant referendum should not be attacked through desperate and baseless legal action," ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks said today. "The petitions are valid and have the needed number of signatures. The fact that this suit was filed long after the statute of limitations ran out demonstrates the lengths to which some will go to muzzle the voice of Montgomery County voters. Let the people decide."

At issue is the law adopted by the county board that installs those protections in the law. Bill 23-07 was sponsored by county council member Duchy Trachtenberg, D-At Large, and adds "gender identity" to the county's list of specially protected classes of people against whom discrimination is banned.

TRENDING: Athlete files lawsuit alleging she was forced off team for refusing to kneel

A petition then was assembled seeking to reverse that law offering "protection" to transgenders from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and various services.

Critics have contended it would virtually eliminate the ability of businesses, clubs or anyone providing a "public facility" to prevent men from entering women's showers, and vice versa.

Officials have confirmed the petition contained enough valid signatures to be placed on this fall's election ballot, but a coalition of homosexuals and others then filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the vote. Equality Maryland, which describes itself as the state's largest LGBT organization, said:

"Subjecting our transgender brothers and sisters in the county to a public campaign of inflammatory and malicious statements, followed by a popular vote on their civil rights, would devastate a group of people already subjected to alarming rates of discrimination and violence."

But the brief from ADF points out that not only was there no legal challenge during the statutory time period allowed for that, "plaintiffs have not brought forth facts sufficient to support a legal remedy of any kind."

Maryland courts also have ruled that "there are only two valid instances when a voter's signature can be excluded, when they are 'convicted of an infamous or other serious crime' or (2) if the person is 'under care or guardianship for a mental disability,'" ADF said.

Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government has argued the law defines gender identity as "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."

"This means that a male appearing as or perceiving he is a female, regardless of his DNA, anatomy, and chromosomal makeup, could gain the legal right to call himself a woman, and use the woman's facility in any public accommodation," the group said.

The group further argued the law could violate the privacy rights of the county's 500,000 women and children since the county's public accommodations code would be revised to read:

"An … agent … of any place of public accommodation in the county must not, with respect to the accommodation: … make any distinction with respect to … race, color, sex, marital status, religious creed, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in connection with … use of any facility…," the organization said.

Since accommodations already are defined in the code as "restaurants, hotels and motels, retail stores, hospitals, swimming pools," and "facilities" include "restrooms and locker rooms," the only place that would be excluded would be areas that are "distinctly personal and private," such as private homes and private clubs.

County officials have told WND they have interpreted the law to mean that showers and restrooms would be excluded.

But Theresa Rickman, a founding MCRG member, argues, "With all due respect, if one accepts the council's assertion that the 'gender identity' law does not cover bathrooms, one would also have to accept that the county's public accommodations code never intended to racially desegregate bathrooms. Race and gender identity are both listed in the same sentence."

In its new filing, the ADF is asking the courts to protect the valid petition signatures of voters in the county.

"Citizens are hurt when judges take away their votes," Nimocks said. "We're hopeful that the court will respect the rights of the citizens to vote and preserve the democratic process in Montgomery County."

"The political agenda of those filing this outrageous lawsuit shouldn't be allowed to disenfranchise voters and exclude them from the democratic process," said ADF Litigation Counsel Amy Smith. "ADF is asking the court to protect the interests of voters. We trust the court will acknowledge that the people are the ultimate authority."

WND reported just a week ago on a similar plan in Colorado, only it would encompass the state, not just a county. There critics have accused Gov. Bill Ritter of paying off wealthy homosexual political supporters with his decision to sign the plan into law.

WND reported earlier when the Montgomery County Board of Elections certified the petition from MCRG, and confirmed it would be placed on the ballot.

The county's Human Rights Commission has authority to interpret and enforce the law, and it already has stated "if Bill 23-07 were silent on the issue of public facilities, [it] would interpret the bill as allowing a person to use facilities based on that person's gender identity."

The bill also contains no exemptions for religious organizations, daycare providers and teachers and small businesses, opponents said. The critics contend schools and business would be required to let employees cross-dress if they choose.

A letter from County Election Director Margaret Jurgensen to County Executive Isiah Leggett, who signed the bill into law after it was approved by the council, noted that the petition "contained more than the requisite number of signatures necessary to place the question on the 2008 General Election ballot." The minimum number had been set by the county at 25,001.

The allegations of inappropriate actions on the part of the petition collectors are ironic, since just days before the certification, there were allegations from petition collecters that they had been harassed while they were gathering signatures.

Officials with MCRG reported Dana Beyer, a senior policy adviser to Trachtenberg, had approached volunteers while they were seeking petition signatures and provided disruptions, "telling volunteers to 'shut up' and getting petition collectors removed from shopping malls by complaining to the management."

The organization released a statement accompanying a YouTube video officials explained shows Beyer falsely telling petition collectors and would-be signers they would be asked to leave a Giant food store's sidewalk.

The video shows the person telling volunteers, "An e-mail went out; you're going to be asked to leave. Any petitions gathered today are illegal."

MCRG officials said the incident took place in Bethesda, Md.