CRW Not Happy With Wording

You could've seen this one coming. Turns out the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever don't like the referendum wording that will appear on the ballot in November, if there is a referendum.

Kathleen Miller at The Examiner has the story this time around:

Leaders of a group seeking to overturn a new Montgomery County law that bars discrimination against transgender people object to how local leaders worded a ballot referendum that could overturn the rule.

The referendum's wording, as approved by Montgomery County Council members Tuesday, mimics the language of the law itself, saying: “Shall the Act to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service on the basis of gender identity become law?”

Michelle Turner, spokeswoman for the social conservative group that spearheaded petition signature collection to allow the public to vote on the law, said the ballot measure's language focuses too much on the discrimination angle, and should center more on personal privacy.

Her group, Citizens for a Responsible Government, has told people the law would allow men to enter women's restrooms. The group is an offshoot of the socially conservative Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum that unsuccessfully tried to bar Montgomery public schools from teaching students that homosexuality is a biological trait. Conservative group objects to wording of referendum on transgender law

Oh my. Where'd they get that? There was nothing and is nothing in the sex-ed curriculum that says "homosexuality is a biological trait." Sounds like the reporter let the person she was interviewing define the frame for her.

Oh well, it doesn't matter, that battle's behind us. And I should note that The Examiner has erred consistently, let's say, in the conservative direction regarding the sex-ed controversy. I hope they're going to pay a little better attention to the nondiscrimination referendum.

So the CRW thinks the referendum should talk about "personal privacy" and not discrimination. Wouldn't that be something! The fact is, the law is about discrimination. There is no "personal privacy" aspect to it at all, nobody's "personal privacy" will be affected. They'd like you to think that's what it's about, but they're just making that whole thing up. It is a classic red herring.

County leaders say the law would not change current restroom protocol and changed the measure to exclude “distinctly private and personal” settings after initial protests from the group.

“They make it sound like we are trying to deny these individuals basic everyday rights,” Turner said. “All we are asking is that the citizens of Montgomery County, primarily women and children, be afforded privacy in bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, etc. We are not advocating that anybody be denied a taxicab.”

I should point out that CRW members frequently say that we're exaggerating the importance they place on the "locker-room" aspect of this law. It's not all about locker-rooms, they say, liberals like Teach the Facts just make it sound like that's what we say.

No, in fact, that's what they say. Their web site is notmyshower-dot-net, it isn't keepdiscriminationlegal dot net.

Hold the presses. This just in. We have just reeived a copy of the CRW's proposed wording for the referendum on the ballot: Do you believe that deviants and sodomites and sissy-men in dresses should be allowed to wave their festering penises at our womenfolk and children anytime they want to, and there's nothin' the rest of us normal people can do about it? Huh? Do you? If you do, vote Yes. If you are a decent God-fearing American, vote No.

Let me state the obvious: they need for the issue to be locker-rooms because the people of Montgomery County will never vote to support discrimination on the basis of gender identity. We're not that kind of county. Keeping perverted men out of the ladies room, maybe you could people to vote for that. But that's not what this law is about. The referendum wording may be a little hard to understand, but it does reflect the actual content of the bill in question, and not some fairy-tale the shower-nuts want you to believe about pedophiles and predators in the ladies room.

Mary Anne Arnow, a transgender woman and employee of gay rights group Equality Maryland, said she is not surprised to hear Turner's group has a problem with the referendum's language.

“The fact is the people who are the most conservatively opposed are always going to take issue with anything that validates the public existence or presence of transgender individuals, regardless of political or legislative precedent,” Arnow said, adding that Montgomery followed 13 states, the District, Baltimore City and 90 other local jurisdictions in approving protections for transgender people.

Both sides of the measure are sitting tight right now waiting for Circuit Court Judge Robert Greenberg to decide whether the November ballot referendum can legally proceed. Gay rights groups argue that the county's Board of Elections improperly calculated the number of signatures necessary to qualify for the November ballot, relying on a percentage of the total number of active voters, rather than registered voters.

I'll have word on that ruling in just a minute.