(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.
By acknowledging the comment as sarcasm, isn't that a nod on RP's part to the ridiculousness of the slippery slope argument?
As a Libertarian who esposes less to virtually no government, he sure seems to want a lot of government control on this issue. A true Libertarian would say leave people alone. The man is all over the map on his beliefs and opinions. Consequently, he is a perfect fit for a modern day Republican! Confused, contradictory, hypocritical.
He is from Kentucky after all.
One thing I've learned since this ruling is that conservatives are obsessed with bestiality. It's truly fascinating.
That can't happen in a civilized culture! Oh wait, "Pan with Goat." Pompey, Roman Empire.
So the stability of a "marriage unit" is extremely important economically. But we still shouldn't let gay people marry, because that would increase the number of "marriage units"...which would ruin the economy? Wait. I'm confused.
What this article never mentioned was that both Paul and Beck are for the ruling and against denying gay couples the same rights as straight couples. Both firmly stated the government should have no place in marriage at all, that it should be solely a religious matter, allowing consenting adults to live as they wish in the families they wish. The way this article was written it sounds as if both men are for the government to force the majority-Christian view of marriage on everyone which is the exact opposite of what was said on the show but if you re-read carefully you will see the article specifically never mentions their views and only used a select few statements with no context.
Okay. Fine. It was just sarcasm. We can all relax. Hey, it's nothing more than someone high up in the legislative process of the United States thinking they can be "funny" on an issue that affects millions of lives! That's GREAT!
So can we use sarcasm as an excuse to hide the ignorance and stupidity of people like Rep. Laubenberg, who stated on the floor of the Texas House that rape kits were "D&C"-type procedures, that they're used to "clean out" a woman after a rape, and that's one of the reasons we should have anti-abortion bills–because she's dumb enough to think that the rape kit is an abortion kit?
Paul/Bachmann – 2016
Now THAT'S sarcasm!
A bit on the HYPERBOLIC side, wouldn't you think?
"That stability of the marriage unit is enormous..." Soooo, why can't gay people get married again?
I am going to summarize the posts here:
I don't like him , so I'm going to make up something hateful against him.
I say keep up this kind of talk.....Rand Paul, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum....will help the Democrats in the long run!
When are these hypocrite Republicans going to begin attacking their own "sins" with as much venom as they do everyone but themselves?
You want to stop gay marriage? You start by de-legalizing straight divorce. Straight fornication. Straight lust of the flesh. Either that or you learn to shut up and mind your own buisiness.
I do not say that Republicans are stupid. I only say that they seem to have very bad luck when it comes to thinking.
Their statements range from the absurd through the irrational to the bizarre. To say nothing of their sounding 100% nuts at times.
Rand Paul says he is against big government. But his remarks clearly show he thinks government's role should be expanded down to the minute fabrics of daily life including defining words for society.
Vote Libertarian instead.
Come on, Rand, you know better than that. You weren't being sarcastic, you meant it just the way you said it, and now you don't have the guts to stand up for your statement once people are calling you on it. And you know dang well that it does of course have to be humans because only adult humans are able to give legal consent to marriage according to US law.
What's wrong with multiple wives? I see no reason this can't be legal.
Does Paul not understand the issue? The equal protection clause merely means you have to treat everyone equally under the law. It's ok to outlaw beastiality and polygamy, but only if it applies to everyone. You would think the Republican "Talking Points" memo they send out every morning would tell followers to not use such a ridiculous argument.
'What is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country?' It's having kids without marriage," Paul said.
Is it? I thought it was a lack of good paying jobs.
The bigots rule the nation. I'm talking about gay rights activist who have politicians and judges in their hip pocket.
What I can't understand is how anyone can be either passionately for or passionately against the ruling. The only real debate is the economic side of it when it comes to spousal benefits. If its for religious reasons you are against it I would pay close attention to some of the comments on the forum. Religious beliefs have consistently been catered to the times we live in. One of the Mormons central beliefs were plural marriages until it became too costly politically to state that belief. Until the late 70's Mormons were taught blacks were inferior beings who got the skin color as a punishment from God. Many stories in the Christian bible were in fact fables written by imperfect people with their own perception based on the time they lived in. Just look at many of the references to how to treat your slave in the old testament.
Not sure if a girl is allowed to marry her father, but some day, some day, this will all be legal.
Hi, I'm God. I don't usually comment here, but let me say, polyamory is not a sin against me. It is just stupid. All those problems you have trying to work out a relationship with one person, well those problems double every time you add an extra person. You are not going to have time for doing much good in the world if you are trying to juggle two or three partners, and you are probably going to burn out trying.
Seriously, I see all, know all. Sure it works sometimes. I've seen it work. Two tibetan brothers shared a wife. One brother tended the farm and the wife, and the other brother herded the yaks high in the mountains for months. And then the brothers would switch. They had twelve children, and a beautiful philosophy. Hard life, but very happy family. So it can work. Just very hard to get the chemistry right.
But it is not against my law. You are free to make your own mistakes. Just act with love, because that will make everything much better. And if you fail to act with love, well that is against my law, and you will make your own hell now and hereafter.