Three weeks ago Governor Baker, a Republican, signed into law the final segment of the Massachusetts gender identity bill, adding public accommodations protections to those regarding employment and housing passed five years earlier. It was about time. Massachusetts now joins seventeen other states offering comprehensive trans protections. The previously most recent was my home state of Maryland.I'm very happy the people of Massachusetts finally have the comprehensive protections they deserve. I am using this opportunity, however, to discuss a tale of two states, their differing approaches to passage of this legislation, the response of out-of-state activists to the two different situations, and lessons to be learned from it. The two states are Maryland and Massachusetts, two liberal states that in 2011 still did not have gender identity protections. A number of states, beginning in 1993 with Minnesota and then accelerating in the early aughts, caught the wave of state-level gay rights legislation, often adding the "T" to the sexual orientation protections under the radar. Then, in 2007, we had the ENDA debacle. The increase in the number of states with trans-inclusive protections prompted the move with a Democratic Congress to finally pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The bill passed the House, but only after gender identity was stripped at the insistence of Congressman Frank of Massachusetts. That action spurred the formation of United ENDA, an awakening of gay civil rights groups to the need for trans protection, and United ENDA ultimately numbered 350+ groups, national, state and local. But the bill died, and would never have been signed by President Bush, anyway.The scars lingered for several years during which there was no movement in the states, but by 2011 the tide came back in and comprehensive laws were passed in a number of states, including Hawai'i, Nevada, and Connecticut. Massachusetts and Maryland had been trying for years, laying the groundwork, and 2011 seemed to be their year as well.As the comedian Laura Benanti pointed out in her marvelous parody of Melania Trump's RNC speech, "this is truly the best of times, it is the worst of times."The Massachusetts history is available in a summary of the MTPC, the Massachusetts Trans Political Coalition. Noteworthy is this history says little about the lack of public accommodations protections, needed to make the bill comprehensive: some of that discussion can be found here. There was some criticism in the blogosphere, but, for the most part, the trans community decided to give Massachusetts a pass, claiming they did the best they could. The best that the state where marriage equality first became law in 2004 could do for trans rights.Of course we now know that the dropping of the public accommodations section was due to the fear of Democratic legislators in the face of right-wing extremists shouting "bathroom bill," a refrain which has become commonplace in today's America. It had begun in Montgomery County, Maryland, in 2007, and became an increasingly useful and successful rallying cry for the adversaries of equality until North Carolina's Governor McCrory crossed a bridge too far.Back in 2011, however, even with a Democratic Governor and legislature in Massachusetts, the state settled for less, and the result was accepted by the national trans community.Not so in Maryland. HB 235, which began as a truncated bill (the previous four incarnations had all been comprehensive), split the community in Maryland. That was understandable, as no one wants to settle for less than one deserves and others have received. But the bill was butchered in subcommittee before the LGBT community was aware of what was happening (to a large degree because attention was focused on marriage and some of us were out of the country), and the question before us was: Do we do the best we can with what we have, or do we pass, let this year go, and come back for a comprehensive bill next year'Some of us, including myself, decided to move forward, while others resisted the bill's presentation. None of us was happy with the situation, but we had to deal with the fact that the Democratic leadership had made the decision. Having been on the board of Equality Maryland for seven years until mid-2010, I decided that 2/3 would be better than nothing, and the lobbying efforts, even were the bill to be defeated, would have been worth the effort. Eight of the sixteen states that had previously passed comprehensive legislation had done so incrementally, including Hawai'i and Nevada that same year. The opposition's argument was equally valid, but they let the situation got out of hand.Trans opponents of the bill, from Texas to Massachusetts, spewed venom against those of us for even daring to proceed. One trans activist called the bill's sponsor, Delegate Joseline Pea-Melnyk, screamed at her for twenty minutes, and then blogged that it was the sponsor who had screamed at her, and painted her as a transphobe. We couldn't have had a more committed, passionate champion in the Dominican Catholic mother of three from Prince George's County, but that didn't stop the hate.An attention-seeking activist from New York came to the Maryland Senate to testify in a bill hearing against the legislation. One of the Massachusetts trans activists attacked repeatedly, even though his bill set the marker for "inadequate" legislation when it actually passed. Ours didn't pass, but the efforts that we made, particularly getting the bill out the graveyard known as the Senate Rules committee, impressed the elected officials and lobbyists, who found our campaign riveting entertainment. People who had never paid attention before, lumping us in with the gay community, got an education. The bill finally failed with hours to go on the final day of session when the Senate President pushed enough Senators to have the bill recommitted to committee, effectively killing it.That was disappointing, but probably for the best. We had made a statement, put ourselves on the map, inspired the creation of the first Maryland state trans political organization since the 90's, Gender Rights Maryland, and then went on to get the comprehensive bill passed in 2014 after passing two more county laws.Ironically, Maryland became the 17th state to have comprehensive protections in 2014, while Massachusetts lingered with incomplete protections until just a few weeks ago when it became the 18th. Called "an historic victory," it's a victory that was five years aborning, and a particularly disappointing delay for a state like Massachusetts. It's just so easy to revise history to erase one's errors. At least one of those trans activists who was vehemently opposed to HB 235 five years ago in Maryland noticed the delay, too.The story, however, isn't over. As I mentioned earlier, my home county was the first to be subject to a petition to referendum back in 2007-08, a battle we eventually won in the state's highest court, as reported by Lambda Legal which had assisted Basic Rights Montgomery in blocking the petition from being certified. Noises were made by the opposition when Gender Rights Maryland led the campaigns for similar protections in Howard and Baltimore Counties in 2011-12, as well as when the state law was passed in 2014. Having learned from experience, our strategy was to do nothing, and not feed fuel to the fire of the opposition. As a result, the efforts died a quick death. When other progressive laws were passed in Maryland, such as the Dream Act and marriage equality, and the community engaged with its adversaries, ignoring our advice, the referenda were able to reach the ballot.Now the Massachusetts Family Institute is threatening to petition the public accommodations section of the bill to referendum for repeal in 2018. They will need 32,375 signatures by late September to accomplish the feat. What will the Massachusetts community do' Recent petition efforts in California and Washington state have failed. Will any of the Massachusetts activists think of asking any of us for our advice, having faced this same problem three times already' A Maryland resident recently posted on the wall of a great Massachusetts trans activist, Sara Schnorr, the following:Stella Jakobsson Sara Schnorr - You should talk with Sharon Brackett about the strategy we had in Maryland. Don't give them any more press then they can muster on their own. Also, here in MD Jonathan Shurberg is the legal expert on referendums and successfully prevented a referendum from going to ballot in Montgomery Co, MD.So maybe they will learn from us, California and Washington and not have to reinvent the wheel and unnecessarily waste resources. Those best placed to act on their rights are those in the jurisdiction, who know their elected officials and coalition partners, and not outsiders, be they national organizations or individuals. By all means, get involved when asked, but don't insert yourself where you're not needed. We should also remind people that civil rights should never be put to a popular vote. They might come for yours someday. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Click here to read full news..
