The O.C. Register still refuses to explain its switch to supporting same-sex “marriage”

On Sunday the O.C. Register editorial page had an opportunity to explain why it switched its position on the laughable absurdity of so-called same-sex “marriage” (so-called). As I noted when the illegitimate California so-called “Supreme” so-called “Court” risibly “legalized” the foolishness, it was just 8 years ago when the Register editorial page backed Proposition 22, which affirmed the obvious: that marriage exists only between a man and a woman.

Anything else really is a joke, like in the classic comedy “Some Like it Hot.” Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon dress up like girls to avoid the mob — but they both want Marilyn (who wouldn’t?).

The Register sensibly wrote in 2000:

The ultimate question in Prop. 22 is whether the definition of what constitutes a marriage should remain as it always has been, or whether the door can be opened to same-sex marriages – and by extension to any other sort of arrangements that people might devise.

After some libertarian boilerplate (which I agree with) about government getting out of the marriage business, here’s what the Register editorial maintained just this past Sunday, next to a picture of two women getting “married”:

As a practical matter, however, the government has so entwined itself into our daily lives that state recognition is important.

This brought cheers from homosexual writer Andrew Sullivan:

California’s largest conservative-libertarian newspaper, the Orange County Register, now backs marriage equality. We can win this.

You can read my full argumenst against this latest anti-libertarian usurpation of our freedoms — this totalitarian government redefinition of our very language and families — here and here and here.

But my main point in this new blog is that the Register still needs to explain why it switched positions. There’s nothing wrong with switching positions. I’ve done it on, for example, school choice and immigration, and provided explanations for why I did so. Time and circumstances influence one to change one’s mind.

As the paper keeps losing subscribers by the truckload — and the physical size of the paper keeps shrinking; today it’s one inch narrower — shouldn’t the remaining subscribers be given the courtesy of an explanation of a major shift in opinion?

As it’s not forthcoming, I’ve come up with four possibilities:

1. Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols”

As Nietzsche wrote, in “Die Goetzendaemmerung” — “Twilight of the Idols”:

Marriage as an institution involves the affirmation of the largest and most enduring form of organization: when society cannot affirm itself as a whole, down to the most distant generations, then marriage has altogether no meaning.— Modern marriage has lost its meaning—consequently one abolishes it. —

2. Sartre’s philosophy of absurdity

The Register has adopted Sartre’s existentialist philosophy of the absurd.  About.com explains:

An important component of existentialist philosophy is the portrayal of existence as being fundamentally irrational in nature. Whereas most philosophers have attempted to create philosophical systems that produce a rational account of reality, existentialist philosophers have focused upon the subjective, irrational character of human existence.

3. Artaud’s theatre of cruelty

Wikipedia explains:

Imagination, to Artaud, is reality; dreams, thoughts and delusions are no less real than the “outside” world. Reality appears to be a consensus, the same consensus the audience accepts when they enter a theatre to see a play and, for a time, pretend that what they are seeing is real.

Same-sex marriage? C’est absurd!

4. Groucho Marxism

As Groucho said,

Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?