(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.
"Does it have to be humans?". The 5th amendment (No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, property...) only applies to people. So he can feel free to deprive animals of any rights he feels necessary to keep his terrible urges at bay.
"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." Is that supposed to be an argument against gay marriage? The whole point is to get married, not to *not* get married (this is why a few conservatives support gay marriage rights). Also, if it's about poverty, men tend to make more money than women, so at least with gay marriage, odds are your two dads could afford you better than a dad and mom.
hw i wish the law of geology could be applied 2 human character. Like " the present is the key to the past". Even nature do conserve, bt human, always psycologically disturbed. Maybe a bit imbalance or let say impatient.
Wait. What? Glenn Beck is still on the air somewhere?
He's right. Anyone who cares to examine what this does to the definition of "marriage" cannot disagree (unless it's for purely partisan reasons).
Frankly, I think the government should get out of the love business altogether. What about straight couples who spend their lives together but never get married (because they don't believe in it)? Should the government be allowed to treat them any differently?
This case has opened up some very interesting questions, and Paul was having fun with it. But the real question you should be asking is: why is government in the marriage business to begin with? Once they are removed, ALL problems, lawsuits, etc. will go away.
I think most free thinking people know Paul is a Moron. He says dumb things just to get a reaction from people.
Nobody can be that stupid.
Rand Paul is implying muslims can have multiple wives. Yes in practice some do have multiple wives but this is against the Koran, their religious scripture (which they do not follow). The Koran came down in an age where the ignorant arabs were drinking, having multiple wives, slaves, beating their wives, and put down strict conditions on reducing and eventually eliminating these unrighteous and evil practices.
From what I can tell from Rand Paul's pic it does look as if his papa was messing with a goat.
Non-humans... really? I'd like to think we have the common sense to realize that things non-human do not have the ability to consent to marriage. Extending marriage rights to consenting adults is the right thing to do straight or LBGT. For that matter I don't even care if a man marries three women as long they all agree that this is the kind of relationship they want.
How is that any different than a married man who cheats on his wife over and over again, the only difference is that his wife doesn't know he has many women, yet he still does have many women... isn't that man already a polygamist, he's just hiding it?!
The word is Hyperbole, not Sarcasm. He is correct pointing out the slippery slope this started.
someone should take him out!
Grow a frigging backbone. His comment has been made countless times by those who oppose gay marriage and not once was there any sarcasm.
How can someone claim to be a libertarian yet support the stifling of freedom based purely on arbitrary religious views?
Those who oppose the freedom of marriage for all human beings always devolve into a discussion of bestiality. This says far more about their own disturbing fantasies than it does about any of the American citizens who are simply asking for the right to commit to a life with another person they love. None of these folks have ever made a compelling argument why a serious and loving commitment between two people could possibly harm anybody who chooses to live a bit differently.
You already lost the presidency prior to candidacy...
I'm starting to think that conservatives are nothing but sick perverts. Anyone who equates gay marriage with bestiality is sick and twisted. It's says alot about their own psyches that they equate the two. Pathetic.
Don't they realize it depends on your point of reference? ie... One could argue that marriage between a man and a woman could lead to all sorts of things too. I mean, it could lead to two men and one woman or even two women and one man or even three fish and two dinosaurs. They're so convinced that their views, morals, beliefs are superior to everyone else's they feel empowered to speak with 'authority' even claiming to represent a deity in the process. Let me play their game for a moment...(sarcasm too...I'm channeling....hold on...hear it comes...yes...yes...God said that hearing Paul's musings and rants was difficult knowing that a leader of men was so blind and ignorant of the truly important things in the lives of humans...wait..he's now saying..hold on..."Whats wrong with a few people getting hitched again? Do they love each other? Did they agree to commit to support each other through thick and thin? To assist in raising children regardless of biological parents?) God also points out his confusion with the 70% first time marriage divorce rates in most of major US cities...oh wait..there's more...he's wondering why Mr. Paul isn't talking about this more?
Funny how someone who claims to be a libertarian would oppose freedom on the grounds of a personal (and arbitrary) religious belief.
What a hypocrite. His idea of liberty only extends to businesses and and the wealthy. He does not believe in liberty for individuals.
i agree with Paul, im not a fan of him (he opposed his father and opposed the mosque in NY), but he is right... how can gay marriage be considered ok, but polyogamy is not? You cant have it both ways, either legalize all forms of marriage or make it standard...
That remark, his office said, wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
So I am safe to not take Sen Paul seriously as well!
The leading cause of poverty in this country is the lack of family-sustaining jobs, not family structure.
Rand Paul is an idiot.
The moron is a self-proclaimed racist and I guess he hates all gay people also.
We already know he despises all hispanics.
Typical representative of the Tea Bag party, aka the KKK.
I thought this D-bag was a libertarian? Maybe he should go back and read that they are "socially liberal"? What a hypocrite...