« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/17/2009

Frank Schubert admits it: He blows hot air

by Jeremy Hooper

Frank Schubert has made a name for himself by attacking marriage equality. He was an instrumental (if not the most instrumental) player in the Proposition 8 fight, and those who are currently trying to rollback civil marriage in Maine have hired the West Coast operative to guide their East Coast campaign. So when it comes to discriminating against gay couples, Mr. Schubert is a force whose name will inevitably go down in the rights-stripping record books.

It is for this reason that we, proudly gay Americans who've been personally hurt by Frank's discriminatory work, were pretty floored to stumble on the following blog post. In it, Frank lectures us all on what he sees as the "last acceptable discrimination out there": That which limits and discourages smokers in the interest of public and personal health. And in chiding lawmakers and citizens on concepts of "liberty and freedom that is at the core of our civilization" as they apply to smokers (and crudely attacking overweight women in the process), Mr. Schubert reveals some pretty interesting things about how he, a professional discriminator, views freedom in this great society of ours. Check it out:

I am convinced that attacking smokers is the only remaining acceptable discrimination out there. While on a recent business trip, I flew through Chicago. Most every airport is nonsmoking. I get that. On a layover at O’Hare on my way to the east coast, I stopped at the United Red Carpet Club, to whom I pay $400 a year for the privilege of being insulted and inconvenienced, and asked the woman at the desk whether there were any smoking areas at the airport, fairly certain of the answer. She stares at me with a most disapproving look and says, “Why don’t you not smoke and add a minute to your life.”



This is a woman who is at least 50 pounds overweight. How is it that this fat woman feels that it is okay to lecture me about smoking when her rear end is spilling over the sides of her chair? I could have told her that I was concerned that her weight would result in heart disease, diabetes and any number of other medical ailments. I could have lectured her about how much American taxpayers spend each year to provide medical care to obnoxious fat women. I could have adopted a sanctimonious attitude and advised her about the obvious benefits of a Stairmaster, letting her know that it might turn her rear end into an attractive human body part instead of the planet she was lugging around her solar system. Instead, I laughed and said, “Gee, thanks for the tip. I wasn’t aware that smoking was bad.” Then I walked off.



I am not asking for sympathy, but I am asking people to seriously think about how acceptable it has become to attack smokers, and think about the broader implications this has on basic American principles. Like, say, this crazy idea of liberty and freedom that is at the core of our civilization.



Smoking cigarettes is legal for adults. It may not be the most healthy lifestyle choice out there, but neither is parachuting, cliff diving, motorcycling riding, speeding down the interstate, or any number of other things that millions of people love to do every day. Smoking is also one of the most heavily taxed activities in the world. California smokers are forced to pay for things like health care for the uninsured, child care, self-esteem programs and all manner of other social programs. But that is not enough for the liberal elitists.



There are serious proposals in the California Legislature to prohibit people from smoking in their own homes. This is based on the argument that apartments have a common ventilation system, so there is some chance that someone smoking in Apartment 100 might kill someone in Apartment 500. (The fact that, if it were true (which it isn’t) the death would take 12,000 years to be effected is of no apparent relevance to the issue of attacking smokers, yet again.) So the public policy of California is apparently that it’s okay for someone to pass gas in an elevator with me in it, but it isn’t okay for me to smoke in my own home.



There are also proposals to prohibit parents from smoking in their own car if children are present. These same parents are free to decide how to educate their children, teach them a value system, decide what type of food to ingest into their bodies, determine their leisure pursuits, decide what kind of clothes they’ll wear, determine if they should see a doctor when they are sick, and otherwise make decisions covering every aspect of their young lives. But, by God, these parents should be prohibited from engaging in a legal pursuit (smoking) while in the presence of their kids.



If a lawmaker authored a bill to prohibit blacks from renting an apartment, they would be recalled from office. If there was a proposal enacted to ban women or gays from driving a car, a lawsuit would immediately be filed challenging the measure. But when a proposal is offered to discriminate against smokers, it is met with applause.



If there is one thing the Constitution of the United States stands for, it’s the principle of equal protection for all. It’s not just the favored who enjoy constitutional rights. Or the privileged. Or the rich. Or the popular. It’s ALL. Yes, even smokers

Pet Peeves and Random Observations [Frank's Weekly Rant]

Equal protection? Freedom for all? Literally citing gays in order to make his point?! GAG. ME!

Here we have a man who collects a paycheck for denying LGBT people rights that they've been granted by fair-minded courts and lawmakers who've accurately assessed the constitution -- and yet he's seriously citing "equal protection" to chastise those who are working to limit the usage of/public exposure to a demonstrably dangerous drug?! And here we have a man who is ALL ABOUT "protecting children" seemingly seeing no reason why it might be in the public interest to protect kids from the secondhand smoke that medical science knows to be dangerous? And here we have a man who, in making his points, sees a need to engage in subjective, ad hominem reads of a woman's "unattractive" derriere (which is especially interesting considering the thin skin that he and his Prop 8 team have demonstrated when faced with their own scrutiny)?! It's simply unreal.

Look, as long as cigarettes remain a legally available substance, we too have constitutional concerns when it comes to their usage. But when we cite the constitution in this area, we are not doing so in a way that conflicts with our work in other areas. Mr. Schubert is. We honestly see no way that he could possibly hold both his views in regards to cigarettes and his other views in regards to equal protection for same-sex couples unless the element of anti-gay bias comes into play. He talks about banning gays from driving a car as if he sees that as an unacceptable notion -- yet he has no problem denying a civil marriage license to the same set?! It's completely bogus! If using an objective read of the constitution, his views on freedom would absolutely apply to those who march down to the town hall to obtain a civil marriage license. But he is clearly not using an objective read, but rather a subjective one that places his right to blow a ring of smoke above gay people's right to obtain a ring of gold. And the worst part: He's making a considerable living blowing this same smoke up millions of people's asses (be they "attractive" or "solar system-sized).

Don't succumb to peer pressure, Maine.



**It's also interesting that Frank makes a point of admitting that "parents are free to decide hoe to educate their children," considering he and his ilk accuse LGBT people of denying parents this freedom whenever it's politically convenient for them to do so.

Your thoughts

NONE OF THE PEOPLE SUPPORTING PROP-8 ACTUALLY GAVE HALF A FUCK ABOUT MARRIAGE, TRADITION OR CHILDREN. THEY JUST HATE GAY PEOPLE.

^hopefully this statement covers the inevitable 'prop-8 supporter is a flaming hypocrite' news in the future.

Posted by: penguinsaur | Aug 17, 2009 10:18:37 AM

I'd have a smart ass remark for this, but I need to go locate all the pieces of my shattered head.

Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Aug 17, 2009 10:26:08 AM

"^hopefully this statement covers the inevitable 'prop-8 supporter is a flaming hypocrite' news in the future." Pointing out and archiving these hypocrisies is kind of what we do, Penguinsaur. Just screaming "HYPOCRITE!" is not enough.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 17, 2009 10:26:17 AM

Kiss my fat white ass, Frank Schubert. Wait a minute. You don't deserve that reward. Anyway, I would defend your right to smoke, simply because I understand the concept of living and letting live. You don't have to be for a certain activity to support others' freedom to do it.

Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Aug 17, 2009 12:23:49 PM

The one bad thing about this, is that if we point out the hypocrisy, the obvious retort is that society is seriously limiting the damage that smokers can do to the rest of us who are non-smokers. And beyond that, that smokers are minorities that necessarily must yield to the majority opinion. That being said, secondhand smoke does kill people, and aggravate a number of medical conditions that some of us non-smokers suffer from (like asthma). So, while there is minimal similarity in the comparison between discrimination against LGBTs and smokers, secondhand smoke does actually physically harm non-smokers - marriage equality does just the opposite.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 17, 2009 12:25:09 PM

Jeff Flint, Frank's partner in discrimination also wrote a similar opinion piece too. http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columns-library0b.php?faID=2009081302135158 I guess the only fags they like are the cigarettes.

Posted by: Matt from California | Aug 17, 2009 12:28:07 PM

OK, so I'm stating the obvious, but OMG! It's one thing to be a hypocrite. To glaringly put your own hypocritical points within your own writing, and STILL somehow believe that you're right, is just beyond amazing. How do these people function in the real world without killing themselves or others on a daily basis? Given his logic, he should be allowed to do ANYTHING that doesn't have a specific law against it, no matter the effect upon anyone else, and not be blamed or held liable for the outcome.

Posted by: JWSwift | Aug 17, 2009 2:42:55 PM

It's good to know he hates women almost as much as gays. Why we didn't all organize a daily protest outside this man's house I'll never know.

Posted by: Bruno | Aug 17, 2009 3:35:19 PM

"I am convinced that attacking smokers is the only remaining acceptable discrimination out there." I love how he then spends the next entire paragraph disparaging and discriminating against a woman for her weight. H8mongers: keeping it classy.

Posted by: Afatymous | Aug 17, 2009 3:40:46 PM

I think I see a happy compromise. I promise to support Frank's right to smoke in his own home if he promises to support my right to be married in mine. Whadya say, Frank? Frank? sigh

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Aug 17, 2009 4:29:47 PM

Welcome to Pariah Island. That thin whining you hear is the sound of your entitlement escaping as we equalize cabin pressure. We do hope that you have a long and educational stay with us, and we please remind you that though the pitchforks look harmless, they are very real. Don't forget to see the beautiful insights at Introspection Bay.

Posted by: marsmannetje | Aug 17, 2009 4:53:12 PM

Duh, discrimination is okay, as long as it's not directed at HIM! Anyway, it's interesting that he's bemoaning discrimination of a lifestyle choice. If he doesn't want to be "discriminated against," he can certainly just choose not to smoke.

Posted by: fannie | Aug 17, 2009 5:23:31 PM

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy