Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Md. High Court Takes Transgender Case

Maryland's highest court agreed late yesterday to hear arguments in the case that will determine whether Montgomery's voters are asked on the November ballot to weigh in on the law that provides broad rights to transgender individuals.

The Court of Appeals will hear arguments on Sept. 8, and is expected to rule in time for the Board of Elections to certify the ballot two days later.

Last month, a Montgomery Circuit Court judge sided with those who are trying to overturn the law through a referendum. The judge said gay and transgender rights advocates missed a critical deadline for filing their challenge to block the referendum.

By Ann Marimow  |  August 12, 2008; 3:22 PM ET
Categories:  2008 Elections , Ann Marimow , Montgomery County  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Libertarian Weighs In On Raid
Next: Money for Prince George's Hospital


Well, the proof is in the fradulant signatures collected in those petitions. Things such as duplicated names using the same handwriting, other names entered again using the same handwriting, and finally many names of people who are no longer active voters. It's simply a variation of Radical Right Wing Christian Bigatry against the transgendered people.
Transgendered people here in Connecticut have had the privilidge of using the bathroom of their transitioned gender for years now, and not one single bad event has happened here from that privilidge.

Posted by: Tgbrendaj | August 12, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure what those in favor of the law are so afraid of here in progressive and enlightened Montgomery County. I mean, if our government tells us this is a good thing, don't we usually just lay back and listen to our nannies? Why are they so scared of putting it to a vote?

Posted by: Aspen Hiller | August 12, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Since when is allowing the voters to approve a law passed by their elected officials bigotry? This is democracy in it highest form.

Posted by: Bigotry? B.S. | August 12, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

If the signatures are fraudulent, as it seems, then the measure should not be allowed on the ballot. Furthermore, all parties involved in the fraudulent signatures should be prosecuted.

Posted by: Joan | August 12, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

The Board of Elections certified the signatures. Prepare to vote.

Posted by: Certified | August 13, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

The law should not allow the voter to vote to suppress the civil rights of a minority group. If this was the case things like salvery would have never been abolished.

The views of a majority should not be allowed to impede the civil rights of any minority.

What they have effectively done is lied to the public to get this law overturned on the basis of restroom privledges. There has never been a documented case of a transsexual attacking anyone in a public restroom ...

It is sad that in this day and age we need to use the guise of public safety to discriminate against a misunderstood group of Americans ..

Posted by: KarynM | August 13, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Why not outlaw discrimination against transgenders but make it very clear that bathrooms are NOT covered by the law?

Posted by: Amend | August 13, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Being transgender myself which you would hardly know cause I transitioned early and very rarely anybody realizes I was ever a man I'm quite disgusted by this. Trust me if I ever come to the US from Australia with my band on tour I wont be visiting Maryland as it sounds like a bunch of bigots who are unwilling to let people enjoy equal rights. Maybe some of these people should look closer at the people who are creating problems in womens toilets like genuine predators or pedophiles. The funny thing is to find these people the people of Maryland may have to look within the clergy or politics which is where these monsters mainly hide.

Posted by: Jade | August 13, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

The law should not allow the voter to vote to suppress the civil rights of a minority group. If the government tells us this is good thing, then Why are they so scared of putting it to a vote?


Posted by: gordongreg | August 14, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse
The biggest collection of sneakers you have ever seen

Posted by: Neffertittie | August 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

imitrex price

Posted by: sumatiptan | August 15, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

"If the government tells us this is good thing, then Why are they so scared of putting it to a vote?"

We are not talking about what the Govt says is a good thing. We are really talking about voters being allowed to decide to be able to disrciminate against a minority.

This law was designed to prevent people from being discriminated against in the workplace, housing, medical care etc. This law is not about seeing a man naked in a womans lockeroom ..

As far as bathrooms go, you stand more chance for violence by allowing a transgender woman to enter a mens room. Men will not be comfortable with that and their will be a confrontation putting the trans person at risk ...

Trans people have integrated easily into society so that most people would have no idea they were ever born the opposing gender. For the minority that doesn't pass as easily this law protects them

Posted by: KarynM | August 15, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: yasmin | August 16, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company