One Thing On Their Mind

Yesterday there was an election in Montgomery County's District Four for the County Council position vacated by the death of Marilyn Praisner. The choice was between her widower, Don Praisner, and Mark Fennel, who has run for the Council previously. The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever sent out a rather frantic email yesterday, telling people to vote for the anti-gay candidate. They had sent a questionnaire to the candidates, which was only returned by Fennel, and you may find it interesting to see how they think: they have one thing on their mind. They sent this out twice, the first one had the wrong date on it.

STILL MAD that the Council unanimously voted to pass the Gender Identity law without any exemption for areas of shared nudity ?

The first election for a County Council seat since the Council ignored the thousands of emails and phone calls from you is today Tuesday May 13th. The election is to fill the seat vacated by Marilyn Praisner's death. ONLY District 4 residents may vote in the Special Election. District 4 is the east portion of the county extending from slightly east of Rockville to Burtonsville (District maps here).

Mark Fennel and Don Praisner are running for the District 4 seat. We sent the candidates a questionnaire. Mr. Fennel's responses are below. Mr. Praisner did not answer repeated requests for his position on the law his late wife voted to pass.

Only 1900 Republicans and 7600 Democrats voted in the primary for the Special Election out of 83,000 registered voters.

Want to make sure that there is a voice of reason for family values and hello - COMMON SENSE - on the council ? Get on the phone and call five people you know who live in District 4. Ask them to call five people. This vote will be determined by turnout. If you want to send a message, GET TO THE POLLS AND VOTE !

"The law his late wife voted to pass" is the one that prevents discrimination against transgender people. Apparently, the CRW believes that people should select their county council members based on that one thing -- they want everybody to vote for the candidate who supports discrimination.

Just for fun, I'm going to paste their whole questionnaire in here, with Mark Fennel's responses. I'll bold his responses, they're red in this email.

Candidate's Name: Mark D. Fennel

1. Bill 23-07 is scheduled to be placed on the November ballot. At that time, will you vote to repeal it? Yes

2. Do you believe that biological males who retain male genitals, but who present or perceive themselves as females, should be allowed in public locker rooms where women are changing? NO

3. Do you believe that a health club, which maintains male/female locker rooms, should face stiff legal fees or fines if it does not allow persons who retain male genitals into female locker rooms? NO

4. Do you believe that a young woman advertising for a roommate should be legally forced to share living space with a transgender or cross dresser? Assume that the young woman did not know that she was interviewing a transgender or cross dresser, but finds out only after the person moves in. NO

5. Do you believe a church should be forced to hire a cross dressing male to be the church receptionist, against the churche's wishes? Assume that the cross-dresser is otherwise qualified for the job. NO

6. Do you believe that a cross-dressing male (who comes in as Mr. Smith one day and Mrs. Smith the next) should be allowed to teach a class of kindergartners at a public school? NO

7. If you answered "NO" to question 1, but "YES" to questions 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, please explain. Bill 23-07 has no exceptions or provisions for these scenarios. N/A

Questions 8, 9 and 10 are in reference to the county's new public accommodations code, after Bill 23-07 additions. The public accommodation code document is attached. Please note that, amongst other things, it states:

"An ..agent..of any place of public accommodation in the County must not, with respect to the accommodation: ..make any distinction with respect to ..gender identity in connection with.. use of any facility .." (27-11). You may wish to go to our website, www.notmyshower.net, and review the "bathrooms" section.

Full new county code on public accomodations. [This is a link but it doesn't work]

8. Per your understanding of the public accommodations code, please define "facilities."

"Facilities" is a sweeping term subject to broad interpretation. I believe facilities are defined as bathrooms, lockers or showers.

9. Do you believe Bill 23-07 covers "facilities" at public accommodations? YES

10. (a) The County Council's attorney has repeatedly stated that "operators of those facilities can continue to determine who can use them". However, Bill 23-07 includes the language above (27-11). Also, the bill allows the Human Rights Commission to levy fines against those same operators if it is determined that they have exhibited discrimination or harassment against those with gender identity issues. Do you believe that the law, as written, substantiates the county attorney's statement? NO

(b) If you answered "YES" to question number 10(a) then please point to where in County law that statement is substantiated: N/A

From questions 2 and 3, it sounds like the CRW wants a new law, saying who can go into what bathroom. As it is, a person who exposes themselves lewdly in a public shower-room or restroom would be charged with a crime, no matter which set of genitalia they display. Same for a person who goes into a place like that and looks at people changing or undressing. Exhibitionism and voyeurism are already against the law for everybody, including transgender people.

The rest of these, I just don't get. What would be wrong with a cross-dresser teaching kindergartners? Their parents dress them, right? I mean, you're talking about five year old kids, what do they think is going to happen? And -- have you ever heard of a cross-dressing kindergarten teacher? And what if churches were required not to discriminate in hiring -- what, really, is the problem there? It seems to me these guys are worked up over some situations that are pretty unlikely.

Whatever, they take this stuff seriously, and so we have to oppose them seriously. Imagine voting for a candidate purely because they favor discrimination.

I should note, the election was yesterday, this morning's Washington Post notes that Praisner won the election with 66 percent of the vote. The CRW's candidate got exactly half as many votes as the other guy.