(CNN) – Sen. Rand Paul's criticism of Wednesday's same-sex marriage ruling, which included a rhetorical question about bestiality eventually being made legal, was sarcasm, the Kentucky Republican's office says.
Speaking to conservative radio host Glenn Beck, Paul delved into the question of whether or not lawmakers should imbue legislation with their own morals. Beck set up the statement by wondering whether the court's ruling – which found a key provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional – could logically lead to polygamy becoming legal.
"If you change one variable – man and a woman – to a man and a man and a woman and a woman, you cannot tell me then that you can't logically change the other variable," Beck said. "One man, three women. One woman, four men. Who are you to say that if I am a devout Muslim and I come over here and I have three wives, who are you to say if I am an American citizen that I can't have multiple marriages?"
Paul, a potential 2016 presidential candidate whose supporters include a large number of libertarian-leaning conservatives, said Beck was getting at a larger question of whether laws can include moral designations.
"This is a conundrum, and it gets back to what you were saying …whether or not churches should decide this," Paul said. "And it is difficult, because if we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?"
That remark, his office said, wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
"Sarcasm sometimes doesn't translate adequately from radio conversation," his communications director Moira Bagley said. "Sen. Paul did not suggest that striking down DOMA could lead to unusual marriage arrangements. What he was discussing was that having the state recognize marriage without definition could lead to marriages with no basis in reality."
Later in the interview, Paul stressed the economic importance of stable marriages for children.
"I also see that economically, if you don't look at it with any moral periscope, and you say, 'What is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country?' It's having kids without marriage," Paul said. "That stability of the marriage unit is enormous, and we should not say we're punting on it and marriage can be anything."
Later, in an interview with ABC News, Paul said he thought the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA was appropriate and said the issue should be one left to the states.
As for the growing divide among Republicans on same-sex marriage, Paul said "the party is going to have to agree to disagree on some of these issues."
CNN's Kevin Liptak and Ashley Killough contributed to this report.
This is what Scalia was talking about...they can't win through the legal system, so they associate human equality with bestiality!? Scalia knows his "people" well!
Logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest. The reason that his argument holds no bearing is that according to modern American jurisprudence, bestiality, pedophilia, and furniture marriage (I wanna marry that chair!) aren't allowed because animals, children, and inanimate objects are incapable of providing legal consent. Assuming that both men, or both women are competent, their marriage provides no basis for legal rejection save for cherry picking bible verses. As per polygamy, the law can draw any line deemed needed for proper societal function. Polygamy doesn't work and we have agreed that it is not a benefit even for religions that condone it. Religion does not trump logic in secular society.
@Billy – Many gay people aren't happy with civil unions even though they could provide the same rights. They want it called marriage, even thought that name and principle is taken from something they mostly oppose. I know it's about equality but in the purest sense of the word marriage (christianity), it's not the same at all.
"Marriage" is not a Christian thing as you imply. If that were the case then anyone getting married outside of a church, like in a courthouse by a JP would not be considered "married", now would they?
Rand is brain damaged and he is kicky with is sick thoughts and action. Rand will tell you what you want to hear for a vote. He told Latinos without him there will be no immigration bill and to blacks he teaches them his Black History. He will look to lie to gays for their vote. Rand thinks if he can fine enough stupid people he can become President. That's how people with mental illness think.
Rand Paul – a has been before he ever was!
Pretty sure that mop on Randroid's head is proof that Rondroid had an unnatural love for sheep.
Next he'll be trying to convince us that thing on the front of his head is actually hair.
Libertarianism is dead to me. I used to at least think they had a place in American politics until Rand Paul came along. Now I see them as anarchists; Heinlein would spit on them.
Unless and until an animal stands up and says, "Yes, I want to marry this man, and do hereby agree to take on any and all responsibilities of marriage established by this union.", there is no "logical" argument that gay marriage can or will leave the door open for this type of thing. This fallacious argument is nothing more than a desperate attempt to enforce a narrow view of morality through the use of fear and blatant, willful ignorance. Last I heard, Christianity and/or Islam (or any other religion for that matter) did not have a monopoly on marriage (or morality). In fact, last I heard, marriage existed long before modern religion and ideology made its way into the world. Marriage is a contract between two people, regulated by the state, not a contract between two people and the Christian church, or two people and the Islamic mosque, etc. So how about people stop pretending the marriage issue is a religious issue when it isn't, and admit their real problem is that "gay marriage makes me uncomfortable because I pick and choose which tenants of my religion I'd like to follow today, but I expect everyone else to put my religious beliefs and ideals before their own beliefs so I can sleep at night knowing everyone else is exactly like me and I won't be forced to deal with anything I personally decided God doesn't like."? I mean, being honest is supposed to be the moral and just thing according to your religion, right?!
People from ages 0 to 59 will suddenly become bigots at age 60?
Doubtful. Attitudes have changed. They're not changing back.
Frankly, I'd rather marry an animal than some backwards thinking, sub-par intelligence, sociopath/social-conservative.
@onepercenter, our physiology is animal.
As for Nutball Paul, his comment reminds of of Man-On-Dog Rick Santorum's comments a few years ago. This "slippery slope" argument is idiotic to anyone with the ability to think rationally. And why would Paul ruin his credibility by appearing on Glenn Beck's show?
BinFl, a lot of people wanted the civil union law besides gay people, and aren't happy that it was shot down. It would have paved the way for gay marriage while also letting sisters or army buddies buy a house together or be each other's hospital contacts. Maybe it will come back around now.
What utter disrespect this Republican senator has for some of the people he represents! His comment is an affront to all people of this country except perhaps to the haters and bigots who may align with his nasty way of thinking.
Everybody calm down. The only thing to change would be the phrasing. To wit: Marriage shall be between two consenting adults. You don't have to add anything about their sexual orientation. Saying it should be between two consenting adults implies that no beastiality(no animals,)shall be accepted. Saying it is to be between TWO adults implies that no polygamy is allowed. Relax and get a grip people.
He is absolutely correct when it come to Polygamy. The overturn of the DOMA guarantees it. Its only a matter of time before someone sues a state for the right to "marry" more than one spouse. That's how the homosexuals got homosexual marriage. Through the courts and not the legislatures. That's what happened here in MN. We had a law for years that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. The homos got a liberal judge to rule that the law was "unconstitutional". They then spent millions on a campaign to get a new definition of marriage passed by the Dem controlled house and senate. It was just signed into law by our Dem Governor. Polygamy will be next. The only way to prevent it is to have an amendment in a State;s Constitution that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Why are we still talking about a tool like paul? paul & beck showed where their minds automatically turned, so who are the perverts here? paul & beck...
It's like Boss Hogg speaking to sanctity of marriage, fitness and exercise, higher education or Just Say No To Drugs!
Makes ya wonder doesn't it....that if that was "sarcasm", then maybe, just maybe that's where he's been putting his brain lately – as a beastial lover! HMMMM? Politicians that can't get their minds off SEX – trying to control women's vaginas (we should control their penises) and now....beastiality? Makes ya wonder. I have been saying the repugthugs are obsessed with sex, their religion whips them up into a frenzy over other people having sex for other than procreation...as in FUN! And many of their own have been caught in scandles...oh yea – Newt comes to mind!
His name should officially be changed to "Rant"....a moron of a man.
There is something kinda beastly about him. I daresay I am becoming more and more attracted!
So how does our government or legal system have any business controlling what marriage is in the first place? There should be no legal difference between married and unmarried people as far as taxes, wills, medical care etc. It should be up to the people themselves To determine if they are "married" and what that implies. And to be frank are we really that threatened by gays or polygamists to interfere in whatever they choose to do? Does it really affect you?
DeerWithGuns: Best comment on this story.
Rbnlegend: I would actually say your arguement about genetic flaws is invalid since we don't prevent other high-risk of genetic defect groups (down syndrom for example) from procreating. Doing so would be eugenics, and that is a real slippery slope. It is best to never let a government choose who can have children and who can't. After all, all those women with the 'breast cancer gene' could have children with it and that would be an unneccessary drain on our healthcare system. That is a real slippery slope because it can all be rationalized as a benefit to the nation while at the same time 'saving' the potential child from having the defect as well.
The best option is government gets out of the bedroom of consenting adults. With emphasis on the words consenting and adult.
It would be a tough choice say between a dog and a cat! A cat sneaks out all nite and brings questionable and disgusting things home. On the other hand, a dog lays around and sleeps alot and barks out orders. Who would be the bread winner?
"Polygamy doesn't work"....says who?????? Why not? I personally think marriage (of any type) is not an issue of the state government; contract law is though.