Thursday, July 24, 2008

Ruling Summarized

I got a chance to read through Judge Greenberg's ruling. Here's a kind of summary of what he decided. As usual, remember I don't know anything about this legal stuff. Whenever I've dealt with the law, the law won.

He agreed with some complaints about the signatures and not others. Most importantly, he didn't think the signature had to be exactly what is on the voter registration -- that was a big number of signatures, where middle initials were missing, nicknames were used, things like that. He let certifiers certify their own signatures. He did not let certifiers predate their petitions. He did not accept petitions on non-standard forms. He did not accept the Board of Elections' argument that they're not responsible to identify fraud; he said, "While the Board does not consist of a group of handwriting experts, its role is something more than that of bean-counter." Ouch. Following this logic, he threw out a number of signatures that were clearly not signed by the person whose name it was, though the Board had approved them. Finally, he disqualified a number of the "miscellaneous" signatures, where things were just screwy.

In the long run, the judge decided that the CRW had turned in 26,813 valid signatures.

Here's a big one. Judge Greenberg did agree with plaintiffs that inactive voters should have been included in the denominator to determine the required number of signatures. He concluded, "... it is inescapable that five percent of the registered voters in Montgomery County on November 21, 2007, was not 25,001; it was 27,615. Plainly, MCRG [CRW] did not gather enough signatures to meet the five percent threshold."

But -- that's not the end of the story. He continutes: "Plaintiffs, however, judicially challenged the denominator too late..." There is then some discussion of what the deadline should have been etcetera. Basically what it means is that none of the rest of it matters, because the papers weren't filed in time.

The summary line is near the end: "Plaintiffs are not entitled to a more deferential standard than the petition sponsors. Because their request for judicial review was filed on March 14, limitations bars any remedy."

Therefore, the referendum can proceed.

This is a fascinating twist of events. The judge agrees that they didn't have enough signatures, after he's eliminated some shady ones and added the inactive voters into the denominator (I am assuming the reader has been following this situation a little bit -- go back in the blog and read HERE, HERE, or HERE for background.). They didn't have enough signatures, but the complaint was filed too late, so none of it matters. And remember, nobody knows when the deadline actually comes, because the law doesn't define it. Even Judge Greenberg was not sure of the deadline to challenge the denominator.

Judge Greenberg seems to fully expect an appeal. I'm not going to predict, this will depend on factors that are out of my hands but I'd love to be a fly on certain walls this afternoon! My opinion is that it's better to spend a five-digit amount of money now to try to win an appeal than to give up and spend six digits or more fighting in the arena of public opinion. There will be some discussions, trust me, over the next few days. We'll keep you informed.

58 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This is a fascinating twist of events."

Yes, just fascinatin'!

July 24, 2008 11:56 PM  
Blogger Zoe Brain said...

I admit I'm surprised.

It means that anyone can make a list of names of voters, forge signatures on each - they won't be checked - and if they don't make public when they're told the first batch of names have been certified, they get to have their referendum.

An interesting precedent. And I foresee interesting times ahead. As in the old chinese curse.

Is there any chance of getting the people who falsified their declarations at the bottom of each rejected form prosecuted? I don't mean the honest mistakes, I mean the pages with names without signatures, the pages where every name is in the same handwriting, etc? If not, then the scenario I outlined above is, if not legal, then allowed by the law.

July 25, 2008 12:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I admit I'm surprised.

It means that anyone can make a list of names of voters, forge signatures on each - they won't be checked - and if they don't make public when they're told the first batch of names have been certified, they get to have their referendum."

Don't you see, Zoe, that having a referendum is not something that should be avoided at every cost. All that happens is that the will of the electorate is gauged more closely.

The law is purposed so that every bill isn't challenged but in this case it's clear that 23-07 would reflect a profound societal shift and that a significant part of the citizens is uneasy with it.

Nitpicking with numbers is petty and the judge recognized that. The special privileges being proposed for this group with a dubious claim to deserve such privileges are worth putting to a vote.

"An interesting precedent. And I foresee interesting times ahead. As in the old chinese curse."

Yes, fascinatin'- and unsurprising. After months of TTFers saying things like "there isn't to be a referendum, dear", we see that when TTFers speak with certainty, it indicates they likely don't know what they are talkig about.

"Is there any chance of getting the people who falsified their declarations at the bottom of each rejected form prosecuted? I don't mean the honest mistakes, I mean the pages with names without signatures, the pages where every name is in the same handwriting, etc?"

Unlikely. There may be perfectly good explanations for these things which are allegations, not facts.

"If not, then the scenario I outlined above is, if not legal, then allowed by the law."

The petitions are a formality. It's generally obvious when something belongs on the ballot.

The voters are dying to stick it to the bombastic and noisy fringe group, TTF. They are sick of hearing TTF get on some media outlet and claim to represent the mainstream in Montgomery County.

July 25, 2008 8:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
Anon- you are such a fool. You and your bigoted friends keep saying the voters want to stick it to TTF and the "liberal" county elected officials- but over and over MC has voted to put in more Democrats and now except for "I am a Dem" NOT - Steve Abrams- there are no elected republicans in MC. Steve will be gone in the next election.

By the way, are you going to move out of the US(or at least MC) after the upcoming election?

The Board of Elections proved they are incompetent in the election when they "forgot" to send out voting machine cards to a good portion of the county. The Board was told "naughty ,naughty" by state and county officials and probably gave themselves great bonuses for the "pain" they suffered in being chastised in the news and by the public.

July 25, 2008 9:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea -- You are wrong if you think that this is a Republic vs. Democrat issue. I know lots of Democrats who signed that petition after reading every word of Bill 23-07.

July 25, 2008 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You and your bigoted friends keep saying the voters want to stick it to TTF and the "liberal" county elected officials- but over and over MC has voted to put in more Democrats"

You're such a drooling fool, Andrea. I said they want to stick it to TTF not Democrats in general. The only TTFer who ever ran for anything came in fourth place in a state delegate race. Now, voters will get a chance to stick it to TTF again!

To put it mildly, voters don't want TTF to portray itself as the face of the county.

It's bad for business!

"By the way, are you going to move out of the US(or at least MC) after the upcoming election?"

Why would I?

"The Board of Elections proved they are incompetent in the election when they "forgot" to send out voting machine cards to a good portion of the county."

Well, the judge seemed to like their work!

Too bad none of you TTFers showed at the big celebration party last night. As long as you dressed appropriately for your gender, you'd have been welcome. That you didn't come and congratulate CRG shows how bitter your grapes are!

Someone brought a projector and we watched youtubes of citizen petitioners being harassed and clips of TTF posts talking about how CRG would never get enough signatures and then how the BOE would never certify them and then how the judge would throw out the petitions because of all the suspicious signatures. It was hilarious and much merriment was in the air but the crowd really went wild when, in a surprise, the judge stopped by and spoke on the importance of the referendum process to direct democracy. I'll never forget when he mockingly challenged Duchy to a limbo contest to see "how low can she go".

It was a memorable evening!

July 25, 2008 10:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And all it took to have such a grand OLD party was Anon's warped imagination! McBush missed it, it was passed their bedtime.

July 25, 2008 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TTF thinks young people want to fill the world with sexual deviance

I look around me and I see it isn't so

young people want a world of freedom

what's wrong with that?

I'd like to know

cause, here we go

again!

July 25, 2008 11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that comments sums up the opposition's position. This isn't about bathrooms or lockerrooms. That was only a tactic in a huge fight to turn back lgbt rights.

July 25, 2008 12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, it's about preventing special privileges for lgbts and preventing government endorsement of the gay agenda

you're the one obsessed with bathrooms

July 25, 2008 12:37 PM  
Anonymous anti-anon said...

anon-

I continue feeling bad for you because your parents raised a hating machine full of internal conflict that emits nothing but bigotry. You might as well come out of the closet already.

July 25, 2008 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anti-intelliegence

Do you support anti-discrimination legislation encompassing every category of minority?

Those who inhale household cleaners?

Those who drive Cadillacs?

Those who take mudbaths?

Republicans?

You don't?

Why not?

Are you a hating machine?

Does your mother know about the internal conflict you emit?

July 25, 2008 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice try to turn the argument, anonymous. It was YOUR side that brought bathrooms into this. It was YOUR side that arranged that phony incident in the lockerroom of the health club.

But I am glad that you are admitting what this is about. It is about trying to deny gays and lesbians their rights and trying to codify your stereotypes and ignorance into law. It won't work.

July 25, 2008 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Derrick said...

AnonBigot-

You're just full of contradictions, lies and absolute stupidity. You really don't bring anything rational to the table to discuss. So why even attempt to enter into intelligent dialog with you? It's a lost cause. It's like arguing with a wall (something I am sure you have a lot of experience with).

July 25, 2008 8:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a brilliant argument, drick

thanks for sharing....

oh, and thanks for losing

July 26, 2008 2:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

love the show of maturity, anonymous. it's nice to see you drop your phony visage and show your true face. hang in there, TFF. and do the hard work. in the long run, you will win

July 26, 2008 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

you're the one obsessed with bathrooms

No lie is too outrageous for you is it Anon? Just think for a minute, which side uses the website called "Not My Shower?" That would be the side that's obsessed with bathrooms.

The final version of Bill 23-07 removed all mention of public accomodations that include "restroom, shower, dressing room, locker room, or similar facility". It also states on Page 5, Lines 89-90 that this amendment to add gender identity to MoCo's existing non-discrimination law "does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal."

July 26, 2008 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Oh dear!

This one from Karl Rove is a special treat for our very own Anon.

The rest of you will most likely enjoy it too!

July 26, 2008 4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sad, Bea.

I guess you can look at this as some consolation after this week's humiliating defeat of TTF but Obama's lead is quickly evaporating, following the pattern of 2000 and 2004.

CNN released a fresh map on Thursday.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html

You'll see that Obama no longer leads in places like Minnesota, Michigan, Colorado, Iowa. In Wisconsin where he once lead by twenty points, his lead has now dropped to six. Indeed, look at the map. His safe states are NY, California, Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts. Most of the country is not enthusiastic. Sounds like 2004.

You see, Bea, Americans want to throw the Republicans out because of the incompetence of the Bush administration. The only question is whether Obama is safe. They've already decided McCain is and will elect him if they decide Obama is too risky. The issue of this campaign is not Iraq or the economy or, even, energy. The issue is whether Obama is safe.

Increasingly, Americans are deciding, no, he isn't.

July 26, 2008 8:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Do you support anti-discrimination legislation encompassing every category of minority?"

No, but I do support the categories of minorities that Bill 23-07 protects, every one of them:

"age, race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, national origin, or marital status"

Why do you equate those categories with these:

"household cleaner inhalers, Cadillac drivers, mudbath takers, Republicans"

July 26, 2008 9:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Distinctly private and personal" does not mean bathrooms; it refers to the type of accommodation. Bathrooms are not accommodations, they are facilities at accommodations. Rio Sport and Health used the "distinctly private and personal accommodation" clause to claim they were exempt from the law as a membership-only facility, and thus a private accommodation.

July 26, 2008 10:04 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

That's an interesting piece of information, Anon. When did Rio make this claim?

JimK

July 26, 2008 10:12 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I for myself will volunteer my time to help my lgbt brothers and sisters in MoCo. Does anyone know who will be heading up this effort? Whom should I and others contact?

rrjr

July 27, 2008 7:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The group organized particularly for this battle is Basic Rights Montgomery. I'm sure if you would be able to donate time or money they'd like to hear from you. That's a new group, if you don't hear back from them contact Equality Maryland.

July 27, 2008 8:21 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Sad, Anon. Not a single word in defense of your indefensible lies about what is and is not covered by Bill 23-07. I provided the text of that bill and anyone who bothers to look can see that I'm telling the truth about it.

Keeping discrimination legal against trans people is your hoped for consolation now that your greedy old party has lost its way, seats in legislatures all over the country, will lose the presidency, and has lost every seat for elective office here in Montgomery County. How pathetic can you get?

Spin some more delusions about the Presidential race, they're all you've got. Or maybe you might comprehend this little slice of reality:

GOP candidates may skip convention
Friday, July 25, 2008 18:23 EDT

Apparently the chance to appear in public with both President Bush and John McCain in one week isn't as much of a draw as it used to be.

Most of the Republican candidates in this fall's marquee Senate races are either skipping the GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn., or trying to duck questions about whether they'll make it there or not, National Journal's Erin McPike reports. That's a sharp contrast from four years ago, when nearly any Republican running for statewide office anywhere not only flocked to New York for the party's convention but scheduled as many fundraisers during the week as they could possibly cram into their days and nights. Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Wayne Schaeffer, who's trying to hold a Colorado seat for the Republicans, have all ruled out attending. Incumbents Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, Gordon Smith in Oregon, John Sununu in New Hampshire and Roger Wicker in Mississippi, as well as candidates John Kennedy in Louisiana and Steve Pearce in New Mexico, say they're not sure whether they'll be there.

None of the GOP candidates or their aides will say they're skipping the convention because the party as a whole isn't that popular with run-of-the-mill voters, of course. Stevens has to stay home for a primary that week (as does his Democratic opponent, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich). Most of them say they just don't have time to leave the campaign trail in their home states to go hobnob for a week.

But if you're, say, Gordon Smith, trying to hold onto your seat in the state where a Barack Obama rally drew 75,000 people this spring, chances are you aren't really looking forward to being part of daily features on the Oregon delegation to McCain's convention in local newspapers around the state. (If you were, you probably wouldn't have run a TV ad that tried to make voters think Obama had endorsed you.) Besides the chance to raise some money -- and maybe commiserate with other endangered Republican incumbents -- there isn't much upside for GOP candidates in going to the convention.

This sort of thing isn't unprecedented. Plenty of candidates don't spend the entire week at their party's convention -- four years ago, then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle left Boston early to head back to South Dakota (and then ran a TV ad similar to Smith's, featuring him hugging Bush, while the Republicans gathered a couple of weeks later). Still, even if candidates drop in for only a day or two, it can't be a good sign for their campaign that they don't feel like they can spend the entire week away from the trail. Most of the Democratic candidates in these races say they'll definitely be going to Denver for Obama's convention.

― Mike Madden


Personally, I think they all want to avoid passing through the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, the home of the Senator Craig peek-a-boo/foot tapping bathroom stall, as well as to avoid being seen with the lamest duck Bush.

Senator Craig demonstrates that it's "heterosexual" male GOP elected officials in men's clothing that we have to watch out for in public restrooms.

July 27, 2008 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rio was quoted as saying this by one of the newspapers after the incident.



"General Manager Kelly Nicholson-Glover said the club will keep its locker rooms segregated by sex, and it claims because it is membership-only it will not be affected by the new law, Bill 23-07, titled Non-Discrimination, Gender Identity. "
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59733

public accomodations don't include bathrooms ?
that's news to ever lawyer in Montgomery county.

July 27, 2008 10:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and I believe Judge Greenberg affirmed that TTF was full of it claiming that the law didn't cover bathrooms.
It does.
One will have to get the court transcripts and send them to Knapp.
And of course quote them in a press release.

July 27, 2008 10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judge Greenberg didn't mention TTF because it was not party to the lawsuit between disenfrancised voters and the BOE.

July 27, 2008 11:33 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

public accomodations don't include bathrooms ?
that's news to ever lawyer in Montgomery county.


Bills about public accomodations can include bathrooms, but Bill 23-07 removed all language on Page 6, Lines 111-114, that mentioned public accomodations that include "restroom, shower, dressing room, locker room, or similar facility." Bill 23-07 also states on Page 5, Lines 89-90 that this amendment to add gender identity to MoCo's existing non-discrimination law "does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal." Bathrooms and simmilar facilities are distinctly person and private accomodations.

July 27, 2008 12:37 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Ooops, corrected typos in the last line:

Bathrooms and similar facilities are distinctly personal and private accomodations.

July 27, 2008 12:39 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Ooops, corrected typos in the last line:

Bathrooms and similar facilities are distinctly personal and private accomodations.

July 27, 2008 12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alright.
Let's agree on a few things.

Public accomodations are the place under discussion. Whether it is a public swimming pool, the movie theatre, restaurant, whatever.

Facilities can sometimes refer to handicap ramps, but most of the time they refer to bathrooms.

If you just at Bill 23-07, you are not looking at the law in the context of the new MC Public accomodations code as it reads after Bill 23-07 amends it.

Bill 23-07 amends the code. So when you see the "..." it means that they are skipping a section of the code that was not changed.

You are free to go take Bill 23-07 and add it to the code and look at the code after it amends it, we have done that here :

http://www.notmyshower.net/codes.pdf

That is the new public accomodations code after bill 23-07 amends it. It is clear that the distinction between "distinctly private and personal", when you read the code is talking about "distinctly private and personal accomodations and their facilities" as opposed to "public accomodations and their facilities".

In every other jurisdiction around the country, that sort of language is used to exclude things like your house, the Boy Scouts, etc.

In Montgomery county, the county council lawyer published a memo essentially saying that well, distinctly private and personal used to refer to facilities, and we had this other bill that modified the language, but it didn't mean to have major changes, therefore it still does.

It is supposedely on the county website somewhere, though I have not had time to go update the website with the link to it. The memo itself is SO convulted that it actually proves our point.

The subject is confusing. If you listen to the recorded answers of Knapp versus Leggett, you will note that Leggett is very careful in his langauge, whereas I think Knapp still honestly doesn't understand it.

If you want to further dissect it Bea, you can read this.

http://www.notmyshower.net/bathrooms.shtml

Whatever, at some point in the future we will put the county's memo on our website, because it proves our point that the language is not clear and quite open to interpretation.

Dana was honest enough to admit that it does cover bathrooms.

Theresa

July 27, 2008 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

You describe "World Net Daily" as "one of the newspapers?" It's one of the most radically for right off the map "webpapers" that exist in this country. I decline all requests for interviews with them, because they can not be relied upon to be accurate (or simply not to lie, perhaps, or at least misquote and twist reality).

Again, do you have any source for Rio making this claim other than a such a noncredible source as WorldNetDaily?

p.s. Thanks to the respondent for the info on the group to contact for volunteering.

rrjr

July 27, 2008 3:11 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Theresa said:

“Whatever, at some point in the future we will put the county's memo on our website, because it proves our point that the language is not clear and quite open to interpretation.”

If you’re referring to the Nov. 13, 2007 Memo with the subject “Action: Bill 23-07, Non-Discrimination – Gender Identity”, I downloaded it from the CRG website a number of months ago, although when I went looking for it recently, it was no longer there. I don’t know if that’s because people like me kept using it to debunk your specious logic about “facilities” versus “accommodations” or not, but it’s interesting to ponder.

The text of 23-07 and this memo aren’t particularly complicated or confusing at all. It CAN get confusing if you elect to obfuscate the issue by selectively cutting and pasting sections out of this memo and re-interpreting them for your own purposes as the CRG has done, and used in their signature gathering flyers.

The very first summary paragraph of this memo makes it quite clear that owners can designate who uses their facilities at their own discretion. You’d never know that looking at “notmyshower.net” or listening to their propaganda here or at the town hall meeting where one supporter claimed that owners would be subject to fines (I think $250,000 was mentioned) if they didn’t let crossdressers in their facilities.

For your entertainment, I post the full text of the first paragraph here:

“Health and Human Services Committee recommendation (3-0): enact Bill 23-07 with 1 amendment. The committee initially recommended amending Bill 23-07 to let a person use facilities based on the gender identity that the person publicly and exclusively expresses or asserts. Although the Committee intended to clarify how the discrimination law should apply to private facilities, some Committee members concluded that the amended language did not serve that purpose. Therefore, the Committee now unanimously recommends that Bill 23-07 not amend the exception from the current public accommodations law for “distinctly private or personal” facilities. The result is that the operators of those types of facilities would continue to designate those who can use them. The committee retained its recommended amendment to clarify that an employer may require an employee to adhere to reasonable workplace appearance and grooming and dress standards that are nondiscriminatory.”

This opinion was not made in a vacuum but is essentially identical to the County Attorney’s conclusion about these matters:

“The County Attorney’s Office concluded that Bill 23-07 as introduced would not require or prohibit restroom designation according to gender identity or biological gender (see memorandum on © 17). This means that an employer or other public facility provider could maintain and enforce current gender based restrictions on public facility use.”

The next part of the VERY SAME PARAGRAPH reads:
“At the Committee worksession, (sic) HRC staff indicated that if Bill 23-07 were silent on the issue of public facilities, they would interpret the bill as allowing a person to use facilities based on that person’s gender identity. Council staff agrees with the County Attorney’s opinion because the County Code 27-10© provides that the provisions prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations do not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal.”

It is the latter half of the sentence above that CRG quoted out of context in its “facilities” vs. “accommodations” argument to scare people into believing “guys who think they’re girls” were going to run amok in the public “facilities.” If you bother to read the just the first paragraph of the memo, or better yet, the whole thing, you’ll find that is not how the bill will be interpreted at all – unless of course, you fall victim to CRG’s obfuscation and / or sophomoric legal interpretations.

One might have thought that the CRG could have gone and made a small fortune by designing and selling new bathroom signs to MoCo facility owners that expressly prohibited crossdressers in the ladies’ rooms. This would have allowed them to hire more people to sign other peoples’ signatures on the petitions (or maybe those folks did it for free?). It seems however, pointing this out would have undermined their whole “pedophiles preying on our little girls” angle, and of course, wouldn’t have torpedoed 23-07’s job and housing discrimination code.

Other items from the memo conveniently omitted by the CRG:

“Some individuals expressed concern that if Bill 23-07 lets a person use a facility appropriate for that person’s gender identity, then a non-transgender person may use that provision to excuse committing a crime.”

Most of the next sentence (everything after the comma) is in bold: “If enacted, Bill 23-07 could not be used as a shield to protect a person who commits a crime in a public facility.”

It then goes on to say “Any action that is a crime would remain a crime if the Council enacts Bill 23-07, regardless of the perpetrator’s identity.”

The next line is important to: “For example, Maryland law specifically prohibits a person from conducting visual surveillance of another individual, with our without prurient interest, in a private place without the consent of the individual (Maryland’s “peeping tom law).

Nothing in Bill 23-07 would protect a person from prosecution if that person entered a public facility and violated this law.”

The whole “facilities” vs. “accommodations” interpretation is a red herring. The law isn’t that complicated at all. Just don’t TRY and make it more complicated than it actually is. And if you have something the LOOKS like a legal opinion, have some actual published legal opinion behind it, not just a convoluted, cut-and-paste out-of-context interpretation.

Peace,

Cynthia

July 27, 2008 4:27 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Robert,

I just wanted to thank you for your support efforts (whatever they may be) in the education campaign. Unfortunately we have an uphill battle on our hands here. Educating people about gender identity isn’t something that can be easily boiled down to alarmist sound bytes like “Women’s privacy and safety rights jeopardized,” “Indoctrination of our kids,” or “Freedom of speech diminished.” (All three of the previous quotes brought to you by the CRG in their “Just the Facts” memo.) It will require a methodical exposure and debunking of the CRG’s fear and smear campaign, and a significant educational campaign to overcome many people’s current knowledge of gender identity issues – much of which comes from watching re-runs of “The Jerry Springer Show.”

Peace,

Cynthia

July 27, 2008 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Note Cynthia, the council is the one using "accomodations" and "facilities" interchangebly.
The law doesn't. I wouldn't use the county council memos as backup, they are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue. Feel free to quote the law, though.

If the council is determined to say that "distinctly private and personal" refers facilities, they can go ask a judge for a declaratory judgement, and clear the whole matter up. They should.

For every other county in the US, "private and personal" is the term used to differentiate your house and private membership based clubs like RIO, from public accomodations like public swimming pools.

Also, please backup where in the code it says that operators can choose to segregate their facilities by gender ?

I will have to go find the council memo and email it to Jim. It is not the Nov 13th memo. It was a memo they published trying to clear out private and persona. We do still have the Nov 13th memo on our website, I believe it is linked the bathrooms page...

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/col/2007/071113/20071113_11.pdf

Theresa

July 27, 2008 4:48 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

We need to refuse to let the shower-nuts define this as a controversy about bathrooms. The image of a cross-dressing predator in the ladies room is vivid and is an effective way to persuade people who aren't paying attention to sign a petition. But have you ever heard of that happening? I mean, besides the event staged by CRW at Rio? If a man dressed up to go into a ladies room and looked at the women, or exposed himself to the women, or molested the women, he would be guilty of a crime. That would be a stupid idea, it never happens, and the fact is, transgender people have to pee, too, and deserve to be allowed to do that, just like the rest of us.

It would be mildly interesting to get a legal answer to the question of whether the law as it was passed introduces some possibility of a hypothetical event happening, but that is not what this law is about. The bill prohibits discrimination against a group that is discriminated against plenty.

JimK

July 27, 2008 6:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The bill prohibits discrimination against a group that is discriminated against plenty."

The same applies to any number of groups, Jim. We can't make a law for them all and, in the case of sexual deviants, shouldn't. Especially, since your definition here allows one to switch one's "gender identity" by simply "expressing" it. Why do you think a pervert or molestor couldn't take advantage of that?

This is a unique feature of the Montgomery County law concocted by the Looney Duo, Duchy and Dana.

No other jurisdictions make this error.

July 27, 2008 9:12 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Tell me, what do you think a "pervert or molestor" is going to do?

The idea that they "could take advantage" of this is ludicrous. They "could take advantage" of traffic lights, too, and jump into somebody's car when it's stopped at a red light. Nobody is going to "take advantage" of this law in that way, it's a stupid idea.

JimK

July 27, 2008 9:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It takes almost ZERO imagination to figure out how Bill 23-07 could be used by molesters and other criminals. Crime is all about opportunity, and this bill provides a roadmap to opportunity.

July 27, 2008 10:48 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

More insults and nonsense, Anon. Typical.

Let's see some language from anti-discrimination laws from other jurisdictions that doesn't include the same or similar language to Bill 23-07, which states:

Gender identity means 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.

New York's language is very
similar.

"Gender" is defined in the City's Human Rights Law to include:
• actual or perceived sex;
• gender identity;
• self-image;
• appearance; and,
• behavior or expression,
whether or not that gender identity, selfimage, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to an individual at birth.


So is San Francisco's

"DEFINITION OF GENDER IDENTITY
Chapters 12A, 12B, and 12C of the San Francisco Administrative Code and Article 33 of the San Francisco Police Code define "Gender Identity" as "a person’s various individual attributes as they are understood to be masculine and/or feminine." * Gender Identity therefore includes discrimination based upon an individual’s self-asserted gender identity and/or gender expression whether or not different from that traditionally associated with the person’s actual or perceived sex as assigned at birth."


And Rhode Island:

The term "gender identity or expression" includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression; whether or not that gender identity, gender-related self image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth.

OK, so let's see you back up your bogus claim that the language of 23-07 is supposedly different from the language used in the other hundred jurisdictions that include gender identity in their anti-discrimination laws.

By the way, if a person commits a crime, it doesn't matter what clothing they're wearing, they still committed a crime. Bill 23-07 doesn't change that so if somebody changes their clothes to commit a crime, it won't help them any.

As Americans, we are all free to dress as we please. Why? Because:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It takes almost ZERO imagination to figure out how Bill 23-07 could be used by molesters and other criminals.

How do you imagine it being used? You should compare what you imagine with what has actually happened in all the jurisdictions with similar anti-discrimination laws already on the books. The reality is that ZERO crimes have been committed by people using this law to take advantage.

July 27, 2008 11:24 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Theresa said:

“Note Cynthia, the council is the one using "accomodations" (sic) and "facilities" interchangebly. (sic) The law doesn't. I wouldn't use the county council memos as backup, they are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue. Feel free to quote the law, though.”

I went back and looked at Bill 23-07 and the Health and Human services committee memo to check this out. Indeed, there are only two places in the 6th draft where “facility is mentioned, and both of them were in the passages that were deleted (as denoted by the double brackets): “[[A person must not deny any person access to the equal use of any restroom, shower, dressing room, locker room, or similar facility associated with the gender identity that the person publicly or exclusively expresses or asserts.]]

The term “accommodation” is mentioned five times, in the following statements:

1: “AN ACT to:
(1) prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable
television service, and taxicab service on the basis of gender identity; and
(2) generally amend County laws regarding discrimination.”

2: “27-5. Duties generally… Initiate and receive complaints of discrimination, prejudice, intolerance, and bigotry from any person or group because of race, color, sex, age, marital status, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic status, presence of children, family responsibilities or source of income, that deprives that person or group of equal rights, protection, or opportunity in employment, real estate, and ublic accommodation. The Commission must:…”

3: “27-10. Scope. (c) [[This]] [[Except as provided in Section 27-11(c) and 27-11(d), this]] This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal.”

4 and 5: “27-11. Discriminatory practices
(a) An owner, lessee, operator, manager, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation in the County must not, with respect to the accommodation:
(1) make any distinction with respect to any person based on race, color, sex, marital status, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, disability, [or] sexual orientation, or gender identity in connection with:
* * *
(2) display, circulate or publicize or cause to be displayed, circulated or publicized, directly or indirectly, any notice, communication, or advertisement that states or implies:
* * *
(B) that the patronage or presence of any person is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or not desired or solicited on account of any person's race, color, sex, marital status, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, disability, [or] sexual orientation, or gender identity;”

Clearly, there is no obfuscation in the law, (which the Council helped write) in fact, “facility” isn’t even used in 23-07, since the only place two places it was included were DELETED from the final approved text. There was no attempt to “secretly” define “facility” as “bathroom” here and create a secret loophole that only the CRG law experts found that would allow crossdressers to invade the privacy of little girls in the restrooms. When the Council wanted to word it such that “facility use” was explicitly allowed, they explicitly wrote it as such – including the terms “restroom, shower, dressing room, locker room, or similar facility.” This is pretty clear and simple. This version of the law simply didn’t pass. No doubt, objections of various posters here were taken into consideration. When the Council did NOT want those privileges to be allowed, they took them out entirely – again, pretty simple.

This then begs the question, why does the CRG keep harping on (from their website):

“=> Accommodations are parks, pools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, motels, bus...
=> Facilities are bathrooms.”

I went looking for the definition of “facilities” some time ago. I spent several hours looking over Montgomery County code to find out how you could manage to put the DELETED language they objected to right back into the bill. I almost gave up trying to find the “restroom” or “locker room” definition of facility when I finally came across this:
From Appendix D. Rules and Regulations of the Board of License Commissioners*.
*Editor's note—Appendix D was formerly entitled "Rules and Regulations Governing Alcoholic Beverages,"

From Section 5.4 Restroom Facilities:

Every holder of an "On-Sale" license shall provide on the licensed premises adequate and sanitary facilities for all patrons, and shall be in compliance with all applicable State, County, and local Department of Health Laws, Rules, and Regulations. However, the requirement for providing such facilities on the licensed premises shall not apply to any such license in existence prior to September 19, 1989 which was in compliance with all applicable State, County, and local Department of Health Laws, Rules, and Regulations. When any on-sale or on/off sale license is granted or transferred, the licensed premises shall have at least one urinal in the men's room in addition to complying with the applicable Department of Health Laws, Rules, and Regulations at that time.

There were DOZENS of other definitions of “facility,” none of which include restroom, shower, or locker room which I’ll list later here or in another post, but for now, on to the rest of my argument.

The CRG *COULD* have argued that by extension of the fact that Section 5.4 of Appendix D refers to “restroom facilities” that must have at least one urinal in the men’s room, other restroom facilities are covered as well. However, this doesn’t provide the same “fear factor” that “there are serious locker room and rest room issues concerning this law for the many of us in the county who want our decency and our children protected” (from the CRG’s response to Mr. Leggett.) I will also point out that Section 5.4 of Appendix D doesn’t mention ANYTHING about LOCKER ROOMS, one of the favorite scare tactics that the CRG like to use:

“Dr. Ruth Jacobs has spear-headed an effort which has succeeded in bringing over 10,000 citizens together who want assurance that this law will not place biologic males in female rest rooms and locker rooms in public places and in public schools, and our numbers are growing. This number was achieved by a very small group since the bill passage despite a long delay in having a petition form approved, the intervention of Christmas and other holidays, and adverse weather conditions. We will not stop until this law is defeated or amended.” (Again from the CRG’s response to Mr. Leggett.)

In order to get locker rooms included in the term for “facility,” you have to use the DELETED section of the code from Bill 23-07. The CRG never mentioned anything about 23-07 explicitly allowing crossdressers and drag queens into *BARS*, and then by extension, other restrooms – this is potentially an argument that could have some legal traction. Nor did they ever mention that their argument for “facility = bathroom” and “facility = locker room” DEPENDS on a deleted section of code.

As for further obfuscation, the CRG likes to point out that: (from their website):

“=> Accommodations are parks, pools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, motels, bus...”
This is true. This comes from section 27-10 of the MoCo Code. Unless you go and read the code for yourself though, you won’t see that the term “facility” is used in these descriptions as well (I’ve marked it with asterisks so you don’t miss it):

“(a) This division applies to every public accommodation of any kind in the County whose *facilities*, accommodations, services, commodities, or use are offered
to or enjoyed by the general public either with or without charge, such as:
(1) restaurants, soda fountains, and other eating or drinking places, and all places where food is sold for consumption either on or off the premises;…”

As you can see here, the existing law doesn’t make the “fine line” distinction between “facilities” and “accommodations” that the CRG would like you to believe. The CRG interpretation of these definitions is further undermined by the Health and Human Services Committee Memo which states (from option 2 of 6 they considered):

“2. Amend Bill 23-07 to reaffirm current law. Current County law has an exemption from the public accommodations law for ‘distinctly private or personal’ facilities. Bill 23-07 could be amended to more explicitly let each public facility provider determine what facility a transgender individual can use. This option would let an employer or other public facility provider decide whether to maintain restrictions on gender identity or biological gender.”

(Did you see how they used “facilities” up there, right after “existing public accommodations law?!?!)

I can understand why Theresa would say “I wouldn't use the county council memos as backup, they are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue.” If I were a CRG supporter I wouldn’t quote this memo either – it has too many legal opinions in it that undermine their case. However, they did quote it, or at least another similar document that had the exact same wording. If you check their website, you’ll find several items from this memo that they have cut and paste to make their own arguments. Don’t believe me – read the memo and check the website yourself.

I wouldn’t say that the memos are “obfuscating the issue” though. Their interpretation appears to be entirely in sync with the existing code definition in section 27-10.

I can also see why Theresa would mention:

“For every other county in the US, "private and personal" is the term used to differentiate your house and private membership based clubs like RIO, from public accomodations (sic) like public swimming pools.”

I don’t know about every other county in the US (I haven’t checked – have you Theresa?), but here in Montgomery County that explicit distinction between facilities and accomodations has not been made in Section 27-10 of the existing code, or in the language of 23-07 (at least in any language that wasn’t deleted), or in the H&HS Committee memo referring to 23-07. I can see why she has to refer to other counties to try and make her argument.

Well, it’s getting late, and I’m no longer on vacation, so I’ll have to say good night.

Peace,

Cynthia

July 27, 2008 11:47 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

As promised in my last post, some other definitions of facility from MoCo code:

From section 8A-3:
Cable system means a facility, consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designated to provide cable service which includes video programming and which is provided to multiple subscribers within the County. This term does not include:
(1) a facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of one or more television broadcast stations;
(2) a facility that serves subscribers without using any public right-of-way;
(3) a facility of a common carrier that is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, except that the facility will be considered a cable system to the extent that it is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on- demand services;

From Section 11B-29. Inspection and testing of supplies and services:
The County may inspect supplies and services at the contractor or subcontractor's facility and perform tests to determine whether they conform to solicitation requirements, or, after award, to contract requirements, and are therefore acceptable. The inspections and tests must be conducted under the terms of the solicitation and contract.

From Section Sec. 19A-14. Misuse of prestige of office; harassment; improper influence:
(c) A public employee must not use any County agency facility, property, or work time for personal use or for the use of another person, unless the use is:
(1) generally available to the public; or
(2) authorized by a County law, regulation, or administrative procedure.
(d) (1) A public employee must not appoint, hire, or advocate the advancement of a relative to a position that is under the jurisdiction or control of the public employee.

From Section 11A-2:
(k) Rental facility. "Rental facility" means any structure, or combination of related structures and appurtenances, operated as a single entity, in which the operator provides for a consideration 2 or more dwelling units; rental facility does not mean any transient facility such as a boarding house, tourist home, inn, motel, hotel, school dormitory, hospital, medical facility, or any facility operated for religious or eleemosynary purposes.
(l) Tenant organization. "Tenant organization" means a bona fide association of resident tenants of a rental facility, certified by the Department as representing at least 30 percent, or 5 units, whichever is the greater number, of units occupied by tenants of the rental facility.
(m) Transfer; transfer of title. "Transfer" and "transfer of title" mean (1) the transfer of legal title to a rental facility, or (2) transfer of substantial ownership or beneficial interests, or both, in the general or limited partnerships, corporations, trusts or any combination thereof which hold the legal title to the rental facility. The transfer of substantial ownership or beneficial interests means the transfer within a one-year period of a total of 51 percent or more of the ownership of the partnerships, stock in the corporations, beneficial interests in the trust or any combination thereof.

From section 15-1:
(d) Eating and drinking establishment: Any food service facility.

From section 5-101:
Animal shelter: A facility owned or operated by, or under contract with, the County for the care, confinement, or detention of animals.

From section 14-3:
(g) Infrastructure Improvement means a school, police station, fire station, library, civic or government center, storm drainage system, sewer, water system, road, bridge, culvert, tunnel, street, transit facility or system, sidewalk, lighting, park, recreational facility, or any similar public facility, and the land where it is or will be located. Infrastructure Improvement does not include any improvement which:

July 27, 2008 11:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The idea that they "could take advantage" of this is ludicrous."

Most people disagree with you , Jim.

Note that your argument has now shifted, as it often does among TTFers, from "it doesn't apply to restrooms" to "it's ludicrous to think allowing guys dressed like girls into female restrooms is going to cause any problems".

And, yet, you have the nerve to accuse CRG of lying.

You're lying. You know full well 23-07 covers restrooms.

It's a legitimate aspect of public discussion of 23-07 albeit not the only one.

CRG's emphasizing the most egregious aspect of the bill is entirely proper. Your side controls the County Council. If you want to take the issue away, amend the bill to say it doesn't apply to restrooms.

July 28, 2008 5:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The discussion between Theresa and Cynthia above shows that this issue is so unclear that it needs to be discussed in a public debate and voted on by the citizens.

Blessedly, this is what will now happen. The public will take note, however, who wanted them to weigh in and who didn't.

Lunatic fringe gay advocates have an uphill battle on this one.

Indeed, they might want to sign up for a rock-climbing class!

July 28, 2008 6:42 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

The discussion above shows that Theresa is quite capable of and eager to (as Cynthia so perfectly put it) "obfuscate the issue by selectively cutting and pasting sections out of this memo and re-interpreting them for your own purposes as the CRG has done."

Theresa said "I wouldn't use the county council memos as backup," and then posted the URL to a County Council memo to back up her confused arguments. The working papers and discussions are interesting, but all that matters is what is and is not included in the final bill. Restrooms and other "accommodations that are distinctly private or personal," which were discussed ad nauseum thanks to the protests of the CRG and their "Heil Hitler!" shouting MCGOP friends, did not make the final cut. Bill 23-07 expressly does not apply to them.

The intolerant shower nuts, who have already cost Montgomery County Public School System hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawsuits in their futile attempts to continue ignoring LGBT kids in the MCPS sex ed curriculum, will not fare very well in the court of public opinion in this progressive county. They don't dare to try to put up candidates who agree with them for elective office here -- they know they'll lose by margins like the 2:1 margin Bush lost to Kerry here in 2004.

July 28, 2008 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds like Bea's getting herself all worked up into a dither.

Calm down, Bea. The voters will vote. You'll have a chance to make your case. But no one's going to listen if you act like this.

"The intolerant shower nuts, who have already cost Montgomery County Public School System hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawsuits in their futile attempts to continue ignoring LGBT kids in the MCPS sex ed curriculum, will not fare very well in the court of public opinion in this progressive county."

As long as TTFers continue with the kind of rants you just engaged in, Bea, few County residents will even consider their point of view.

"They don't dare to try to put up candidates who agree with them for elective office here -- they know they'll lose by margins like the 2:1 margin Bush lost to Kerry here in 2004."

Bea, the only candidate TTF has presented to the county voters, the questionable Dr Beyer, lost spectacuarly, coming in fourth place.

I think the voters were trying to send you a message.

They don't like hyperbole, name-calling, trivializing the concerns of responsible citizens and attacks on democracy.

Act like a civilized human being and they might consider your case.

Continue like you're going and you'll be shut out.

July 28, 2008 8:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey folks,
it is not just me saying the bill covers bathrooms.
It is the opinion of the attorneys as well.
I will defintely have to email that memo to Jim or find it, it really shows how ridiculous the language is. And I believe the judge said that it covered bathrooms duing the trial. I will also have to dig up that quote.

and the clear code on public accomodations does cover facilities.
again, you have to look at the bill placed within the code it modifies ...
it says :

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 .."

I cut the "..." sections out for clarity, this does not change the meaning. Code is posted here :

http://www.notmyshower.net/codes.pdf

July 28, 2008 9:30 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon, you apparently missed the point. There is indeed one section of MoCo code that refers to “facilities” as restrooms, and that is in Appendix D Section 5.4, which deals with BARS. So clearly, the CRG found a loophole that allows “drag queens” and “transvestites” and even potential pedophiles into restrooms in BARS, and perhaps by extension, other restrooms as well; perhaps a judge could rule on that. The CRG never mentions this in their argument though. It’s always about how ““Protect our Children” and “Keep our Locker Rooms Safe. I found many definitions of “facilities,” but nowhere in MoCo code that I could find was there any definition (that wasn’t deleted) referring to “Locker Rooms” as “facilities.” I would be nice if some one could point this out for us, or as Theresa says “Feel free to quote the law.”

If you can’t use the Locker Room Scare Tactic ™ though, how can you use a website name like “notmyshower.net” or use the “Pool Time” flyer in your smear campaign (http://www.notmyshower.net/MCRG-Pool-Time-062708.pdf)? And whether you staged the “man in a dress” going in to the Rio or not, there really isn’t any legal interpretation provides you with a basis for printing out reams of bright yellow flyers about the incident and passing them out while collecting signatures. You could have followed around and video taped Maryanne for the past 5 years while she tried to get hired as a chef – a job she was highly sought-after before transitioning. But showing her get turned down time after time for being T doesn’t have the same motivating fear that claiming “crossdressers will be exposing themselves to little girls in pool locker rooms” now, does it?

Take care,

Cynthia

July 28, 2008 9:55 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

You are too funny Anon. You're the one spinning out of control that Obama's increasing lead in all the polls is a bad thing and that discrimination will win any election here in Montgomery County.

Remember, it was the CRC who was shut out in the end of the curriculum battle, a battle that TTF's side won. There will be a similar outcome on this issue. You are hallucinating if you think Montgomery County voters will vote against an "Act to prohibit discrimination."

July 28, 2008 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, you apparently missed the point."

The point, Cynthia, is that there is enough ambiguity to require direct intervention by the voters. They'll clear things up nicely the matters which our councilmen have so cleverly conspired to conceal.

"There will be a similar outcome on this issue."

Glad to see you've calmed yourself down, Bea.

You forget that the curriculum controversy never made it to the voters.

The special protection bill for cross dressers will be decided directly by the public, in fine democratic fashion- to the chagrin of TTF.

July 28, 2008 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You're the one spinning out of control that Obama's increasing lead in all the polls is a bad thing"

Oh, I suppose it's not a bad thing for Democrats but, if you believe historical trends, it doesn't appear bad for Republicans either. Summertime leads for Democrats rarely mean anything in the general election.

This especially true for Obama that has so much going against him. Inconsistency, inexperience, lack of demonstrative patriotism, questionable associates, inadequate understanding of international strategic relationships, non-existent energy policy, opposition to school choice programs to help inner city blacks, strange upbringing overseas, wild support from Western Europeans who detest America, et al.

July 28, 2008 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I think that if Theresa et al are so worried about public restrooms, they should pee at home.

rrjr

July 28, 2008 3:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, as good fortune would have it, you can't vote in Maryland, Robert.

July 28, 2008 4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just found out something from somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows Theresa. They said she actually has a unisex bathroom right in her own house!

July 28, 2008 6:23 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Hey folks,
it is not just me saying the bill covers bathrooms. It is the opinion of the attorneys as well.”


Congratulations. That instantly turns all CRG lies about "bathrooms" true.

So remember that 'folks,' it’s not just LSOS’s like Theresa who are dishonestly claiming that this is about bathrooms, it’s their LSOS "attorneys" as well.

July 28, 2008 7:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're a lying slob, prov

July 28, 2008 9:27 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“you're a lying slob, prov”

Ok, but how specifically am I lying in regard to all that’s been said in this thread?

August 03, 2008 1:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home