One of the most tiresome things about being a social conservative is the constant, sanctimonious lecturing by those who are now loud and proud advocates for gay marriage. Most of these people, of course, hopped on the rainbow bandwagon rather late in the game—Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton included, to name only two people in a list of prominent Democrats that could stretch on for pages. These recent converts drone on about the issue of gay marriage, comparing it to a civil rights issue rivalling that of segregation. All of this is with the intention of indicating that they are on the right side of history, even if their particular side has only about twenty years as opposed to the thousands of years on the other side.
But the Left enjoys practicing a convenient amnesia when it comes to history, especially their own history. It doesn’t matter how devoutly they defended traditional marriage, or the fact that it may have been only a scant few years ago. What matters now is that they can use LGBT issues to club their socially conservative opponents over the head, and they can do it while tapping into the always-brimming reservoirs of moral outrage they keep on standby. They no longer have to stick to calling conservatives racist, because now they can also call conservatives homophobic, and transphobic, and any number of other labels currently being concocted by the delusional social engineers populating weird university departments dedicated to the study of our multiplying minorities. They can also launch witch hunts to get people fired for opposing gay marriage back when they opposed it, too.
So every once in awhile, I like to point out this hypocrisy just to remind people that the Left’s outrage is phoney, the sanctimoniousness is contrived, and their condemnation should be spurned with contempt. Let’s take Al Franken, for example, the late-night comedian who mysteriously ended up as a senator. This week, he grilled Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch on gay marriage, trying to force Gorsuch’s personal opinion on the matter out of him, while taking several detours to discuss one of Gorsuch’s friends, who had come out as gay. He harried and interrupted, frustrated that his McCarthyite line of questioning wasn’t getting Gorsuch to cough up what he wanted. Eventually, he cut Gorsuch off and moved on.
Franken’s sneering sense of superiority was galling enough that I decided to do a quick Google search on his own history. And what do you know? Several gay rights websites had condemned him in the past, because Franken actually joked about the murder of a gay man, which seems substantially more serious than supporting traditional marriage. The joke—which he found uproarious at the time—was delivered to a reporter at the Harvard Crimson:
He recalled writing a skit called “Seamen on Broadway” that was rejected from the Hasty Pudding show “by some preppie so they could take some other preppie’s skit.” Franken started to smile again, but his tone was serious, too serious. “It’s not preppies, cause I’m a preppie myself. I just don’t like homosexuals. If you ask me, they’re all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia.” The smile became so broad it pushed his eyes shut. He couldn’t stand it any longer. “Put that in, put that in,” Franken laughed, leaning over the desk. “I’d love to see that in The Crimson.”
So there you have it, then. If people like Franken want to launch witch hunts over people believing something that nearly everyone has believed for thousands of years—that marriage is between a man and a woman—then perhaps he should clean out his own closet, first. I’m sure he would say he was joking, but the reporter seems to have thought he was “too serious.” Now, I believe in traditional marriage, but I think saying you’re happy that a gay man got murdered is pretty off the charts. How about you, Senator Franken?
Well done, Jonathan. I agree with your overall point. However, in the interest of objectivity, I’m also willing to play devil’s advocate. If I were a postmodern liberal, my defense might be that I’ve been enlightened on some things, and therefore no longer hold the “primitive” views I once held – and thus why do conservatives insist on remaining benighted?
My response to that would be that we see post-modern views as a fad. Gay marriage was illegal everywhere in the world prior to the year 2000. Babbling on about the “right side of history” is pretty ironic in the context of actual history.
Really love your articles Jonathan, not too many that i miss reading..keep up the great work..
Thank you!
I notice that you failed to mention that he said this back in 1976. Any reason why?
I specifically wrote “in the past”–and hyperlinked the article so people could read it for themselves.
Well done, Jonathan. I agree with your overall point. However, in the interest of objectivity, I’m also willing to play devil’s advocate. If I were a postmodern liberal, my defense might be that I’ve been enlightened on some things, and therefore no longer hold the “primitive” views I once held – and thus why do conservatives insist on remaining benighted?
My response to that would be that we see post-modern views as a fad. Gay marriage was illegal everywhere in the world prior to the year 2000. Babbling on about the “right side of history” is pretty ironic in the context of actual history.