« Bill Marriott: "Neither I, nor the company, contributed to the campaign to pass Prop 8." | Chino Blanco's Blog | Sonja Eddings Brown: Shame on You »
Yes on 8 Campaign Manager Supports Marriage Equality for Smokers
Frank Schubert then (Oct. 20):
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his stand on all the ballot propositions yesterday. I got a call from someone asking for my reaction. Here it is: "Who cares?"Frank Schubert now (Nov. 14):
Where is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger while churches are being attacked?Yesterday's Prop 8 tough guy may have become today's woeful whiner, but one thing that's always remained constant with Frank is the depth of his constitutional acumen.
When Frank's not busy with his Prop 8 duties, he's been known to enjoy a relaxing smoke. He'd also be the first to admit that being a smoker in health-conscious California is no easy thing. In Frank's own words:
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.You tell 'em, Frank. It's always a pleasure to read a Yes on 8 campaign manager defending the principle that smokers deserve equal protection no matter how unpopular they might be. Now I'm off to advise ALL my gay friends to take up your bad habit and thereby qualify themselves in your eyes for the equal protection that you've heretofore worked so hard to deny them.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.
Advertisement





Ironic.
Seems to me if churches are going to attack segments of the population by becoming involved in political processes, that they should be attacked back.
#1. They should lose their tax-exempt status. Sooner rather than later.
November 15, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Smoking is a choice. No one was born a smoker. What burns my butt is that insuring smokers is detrimental to the purity and sanctimony of my health care coverage. Smoking is not natural and is an affront to health care providers, driving up costs which threatens my sacred relationship with my HMO.
November 15, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
LMBO (laughed my butt off). Cheers!
November 15, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a big fan of going after LDS tax-exempt status. Lots of folks are tax-exempt in the USA. I'd rather see more attention paid to what sets them apart in terms of their highly-centralized finances (which in turn gets us to a discussion about the utter lack of transparency on the LDS side, something that distinguishes Salt Lake from, say, the Catholic church, which is financed on the diocese level, or mainline Protestant churches, which remit something like 10-15% to HQ, as opposed to the LDS, which remit 100% of local contributions and then get a portion back from Salt Lake).
That said, here's what I'd like to see happen after we accomplish our huge national protest today:
1) Our side gets familiar with Santa Fe v. Doe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_Dist._v._Doe
As loath as they might be to admit it, Mormons have gone to the Supreme Court in order to protect themselves against the majority's religious beliefs.
There are ways to frame our demands in ways that focus attention on the common ground that our side shares with those religious folks who are outside the mainstream. Our argument should not have been that "your child will never hear about gay marriage in school" ... rather, it should've been that "we're all fighting so that your child, any child, never has to face discrimination in school because of the family she comes from" ...
2) Our side gets familiar with the BYU sports schedule, knows when and where their away games are happening, and finds people to hold signs at the doors/gates. Ditto for Mormon Tabernacle Choir performances, any ballroom dancing competitions to which BYU brings its teams, and every other opportunity to engage ambassadors of LDS culture outside Utah. For example, I think BYU is playing an away game at Pepperdine on the 18th. Pity if noone were to show up to protest.
3) Our side continues the boycotts of Mormon-owned and/or Mormon-run businesses in deliberate fashion. The ownership class in our country is still betting that we're all gonna yell and scream for a few days and then get lazy about actually holding Prop 8 funders to account. Get serious and prove them wrong.
November 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd argue that latter bit is a problem, however.
November 15, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, but my horizon is 2010. I don't think we have to reinvent the wheel between now and then to repeal.
November 15, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, and I'm afraid I have a habit of pointing out where I disagree and far too often not pointing out where I agree, so take the fact that I only picked out one sentence to mean I agree with everything else you wrote.
I really liked the smoker irony. It'd be hard to create a better repudiation than the one he's already provided.
November 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This brings up the question if we can now co-opt entire states if we raise enough money like the Mormons have done. Think of the possibilities.
If I can raise enough money, I can get an initiative on the ballot to ban smokers from getting married. Or, hmmm...actually, I think it is ok if Catholic smokers get married but not Jewish smokers...and I mean, gay people should not smoke anyway but heterosexuals should be able to smoke and get married. But what about black smokers who are gay? Hmmm. I feel a ballot initiative coming on. We can call it "democracy" if that makes you feel better but we all know what it is.
November 15, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This makes me feel better:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8237
November 15, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink