(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.
Young Mr Paul has half the IQ of his dad, and none of his country charm.
I'm not even a Ron Paul fan and I can see that.
I'm not sure what bothers me more, a U.S. legislator who would make that sort of "bonehead" statement, sarcasm or not, or a U.S. legislator who believes that the major cause of poverty is having a child "out of wedlock". Wow.
Rand Paul is simply an idiot who panders to whatever people he can get to vote for him. Gays have the right to be happy like anyone else period. They pay tax's, buy homes, cars, have business's, vote, are in the military and have fought for this nation and died for this nation. If, as some of you try to use...say God is against it fine, then let God handle it. You are a mere mortal like all humans are. Otherwise if they are not bothering you ....leave people alone and let all people live thier lives! If you are not paying for thier houses, cars, rent, and tax's then you have no standing whatsoever to tell someone they can or cannot be happy. Worry about congress not doing thier jobs that's more important, worry about having healthcare that's more important. Worry about all our kids getting a great education that's more important. People are worked up over something you cannot control, some folks are gay, that's it. It's been that way for centuries and it will always be that way. You cannot stop or change it and you never will. So lets worry about the things we can do to better our society and our world.
Quite a leap – to assume that marriage between two committed partners now justifies marriage between multiple partners ... or marriage between species.
But I guess whatever works to feed the fear and bigotry of your constituency, right?
It was a slippery slope wayyyy before marriage was reduced to "one man, one woman".
I guess the only way to be a marriage purist to these arsewipes is to reset back to the days that rich men or those with power/status could kidnap multiple women from nearby villages, r@pe them, add them to their list of chattels, and keep them locked up in their homes in forced labour to take care of children from all the other wives and concubines.
So they applaud Ariel Castro with his interpretation of a biblical marriage?
Marrige was created to provide a stable environment for raising children. It cannot be allowed for men to impregnate women and then leave them unsupported. Society and even the Human Race would die out if we allowed that to happen. So 'marrige' was created, even to the point that divorces were not allowed.
While the need for such stablitiy still exists, in today's world it CAN be accomplished by single parents, groups of parents (poligamy) and yes, even Gay parents. So open your minds, accept that those who partner can be just as committed as man-women pairs, and move on to the real IMPORTANT things that need fixing. Like JOBS, ending the wars, ending the War on Drugs, the deficit, radical Islam, Big Brother's snooping, corrupt politicans and Bankers, Private for-profit prisons... the list goes on and on!
Paul lives in a fantasy reality where if he could only abolish the "fedrul gubment" would would all live in a lawless paradise.
PJ what's wrong with polygamy if its not forced on people and they are able to pay their bills who cares if 30 people marry each other. How does that affect you and your choices? Its not like you are going to go off any marry five other people right?
By defining marriage as between a man and a woman IS placing moral designations on things. So from that perpective the court is actually UNDOING moral designations. That said I get it it could potentially be a slippery slope to allowing multiple spouses or heck allowing whole communes to be considered "married" by law. But removing state and government control over defining these things is exactly what the GOP wants.....usually unless the DONT agree with it. They are hippocrites simple.
Why does he say one thing on Beck's show and another on a different show? True politician. He's just pandering for votes.
I would rather marry a dog, cat, rat, or any other animal than to marry someone like Rand Paul.......
Rand makes a valid point. Gay sex/marriage has NOTHING to do with bestiality, and the any such comparison is offensive. But, he is correct that, once we acknowledge the there are two definitions of marriage (opposite sex and same sex), then SOMEONE will eventually demand a third definition (polygamy, polyandry), or a fourth (bestiality). Clearly the comparison is nonsense, but it's hard to open Pandora's Box only a little. Having a single definition of marriage has the advantage of being black-and-white (and the disadvantage of being grossly unfair). With that simplicity gone (and I'm glad it is) future discussion get complicated. Forget bestiality. Polygamy will obviously be the next type of marriage to be considered for equal protection. What do people think about that (no sarcasm intended)?
Give me a break. Why is everyone so appalled? He has a right to say anything he wants – the PC police are not going to silence Americans any longer! And so what if Paula Deen said the N word? Everyone needs to grow up – what are we – on a playground? Toughen up and take it. There are probably many black people saying right now, what's the big deal? And the woman apologized anyway – get over yourselves!
the whole world can accept homosexuality but it will remain wrong, sinful and abominable before the creator. Now the stage is set for the final showdown in human history between the satanic kingdom and GODS kingdom with jesus christ at the head. let us be wise and remember what happened to sodom and gomora of old which was burnt to the ground by GOD because of homosexuality to warn us of the consequences of this abomination called homosexuality. let everyone with an ear listen.
Polygamy is a lifestyle choice. Being gay isn't. Nobody is born a polygamist. Apples and oranges.
I didn't know that they isolated the "gay gene" yet.
Rand Paul is always telling people he is a libertarian. I thought they were for freedom and staying out of peoples personal lives. He is comparing same sex relationships to bestiality? The media should call him out on it. America should be embracing the Supreme Court decision. Freedom won yesterday. I am ashamed of some of our elected leaders but I am very happy for couples who love eachother and can now get married. America won yesterday and bigots lost!!!!
For those who insist on comparing gay marriage to marrying animals or children, or cal it "the slippery slope", well..
We have reasons why we pass certain laws. We don't pass laws "just because". For example, you can't marry children because children do not have the mental development to understand what they are doing or to make decisions like this. You can't marry animals because animals are a lower life form and it would be considered cruelty. And you can't marry your sister or brother or daughter or son due to the serious genetic problems it would cause. You can't marry more than one person because the potential for fraud, monetary or otherwise, is present. All those represent serious harm to the public and individuals if we allowed them. In other words, we have reasons for laws about those things.
Being gay, on the other hand, is legal. There is no harm to the gay people or to the public. In other words, "because it upsets some of you" is not a good enough reason to have a law banning something. Therefore, they should be able to do all the legal things the rest of us can do and they shouldn't be allowed to do the things in the above list we also aren't allowed to do. Very simple.
Why not let us legislate that only politicians with a brain can be elected to office. We might actually move the country forward instead of taking it further into the dark ages.
Of course the argument shouldn't be taken seriously. Nor should Rand Paul.
rand just had a Freudian slip, he wants to marry multiple goats. thats all. lol.
The more I hear from Rand Paul and Marco Rubio and other potential 2016 nominees, the more I hope and pray that Mitt Romney makes another try and finally wins.
It must suck to conservative middle-aged white men that society no longer sees them as credible on any issue anymore ever since we TWICE decided to elect a black man as our President and our country's economic and social standing is improving since the last conservative middle-aged white man in charge tried to destroy America by using his low iq and ignorant beliefs to promote catastrophic policies which result in a Great Recession and inequality.
Why is polygamy a problem? This is a free society. Anyone can marry anyone and as many people as they want so long as it is concensual.
The government should not discourage or encourage ANY behavior. You want to get married? Fine, go to your church, the government has NOTHING to do with it at all. No reason for them to even know if you're married or not. The fact that people argue about whether gays can marry or not COMPLETELY misses the only actual relevant conversation. Which is why is the government even talking about marriage in any form.
If gay marriage is legal I don't see how anyone can possibly argue against polygamy. If the polygamists are consenting adults, and they want to be married, why should they not be allowed to marry using the same arguments gays have used?
Texas Republicans won't remove the bigamy defense from the Family Law articles of law. All a bigamist has to do is claim that they "thought" they were divorced when they enter into an invalid marriage and they can get away with fraud and perjury in the marriage application. In fact, if they keep up their charade long enough that the first spouse dies before the crime is discovered, the invalid marriage becomes legal under common-law. At that point the bigamist can actually inherit all or part of the second spouse's estate. So much for the Republicans family and morally oriented stance.