(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.
Um, Marriage is between CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS by LAW already there Randy, So seeing how animals can't talk us and CONSENT to marriage anyway... Your sarcasm is just your BIGOTRY showing. And like others have said, this same argument was made against blacks marryings whites not too long ago... Shows where the GOP/TEAPARTY line of non-thinking is at. Don't want big government unless its in your bedroom with a tranvaginal probe and a bucket of popcorn... I've known for years these GOP/TEAPARTY rightwing pukes were perverts, this just goes further towards confiming it.
'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."
No fault divorce is the biggest cause of having kids without marriage. Will he advocate eliminating that? If so, I respect him for holding to his values. If not, he is a hypocrite.
There is no wonder why this falling apart when you have people like r Rand Paul in congress. Stupidity rules.
Just another example of Rand Paul being the idiot that he is.
no bodies business but my own
@Mugabe – What Paul meant was beast or animals knows better than the current activist aka judges of supreme Obama. If sodomy is okay why not beashtiality or polygamy . If jones wants his/ her horse turn to the horse lobbyists who in turn will oil the activists and the horse affair will be endorsed as pursuit for happiness and its good for the children because they can ride it during the day before neighing with it at bed time. Shame shame time to limit these activist time in Supreme Court and how they are hand picked. Otherwise the rule of the law has lost it's true meaning when everything turns out to be for sale.
So in your mind the judges are "activists" when they make a ruling you don't like but they are doing their job when you agree with them. President Obama only appointed 2 of the 9 judges so your assertion about HIS court is absurd. Stop with the hate – the slippery slope argument is just another way to try to support your hatred for others who don't hold the same views as you.
@ HenryMiller –
It must be tough being a Libertarian, eh? The left crucifies you for your small government views, and the right crucifies you for your socially liberal views. Ya just can't win.
Scandal Randal is projecting his own fantasies on homosexuals.
Funny how "states' rights" supporters suddenly do a 180 when the states vote for something they don't like.
@ Rudy-Libertarians believe the govt does not need to be involved in marriage, it shouldn't be up to the govt at all. That does not mean libertarians are in favor of gay marriage.
You speak like a neo-libertarian. You got the first part correct: "libertarians believe the govt does not need to be involved in marriage." But, then the neo-libertarian hypocrisy seemed to slip out when you said, "That does not mean libertarians are in favor of gay marriage."
A true libertarian wouldn't want the government involved in stopping gay marriages. Only someone pandering to Christian conservatives while pretending to be a libertarian would take that position.
The lunatic left comments here are testimony to the degradation of morality we have suffered.
Either Islam will pourge the world of these people or our own Hitler. We will all suffer what you have brought.
There is no scientific evidence of Evolution. It is a theory.
@amanda he's not defending our Constitutional freedoms. He's only defending the freedoms he thinks we should be allowed to have. Like the "freedom" to be fired if our boss doesn't like our choice of religious or political views.
So Paul says kids are living in poverty due to a lack of marriage, wouldn't gay marriage help the problem? Wouldn't more marriages be better than less? How about outlawing divorce? Would that be acceptable to Paul? How about forced marriages between two people on the basis that the woman is pregnant? If you are not going to legislate these issues based on your belief that ties poverty to a lack of marriage, then you cannot legislate against gay marriage on the same basis. Paul...really...how does gay marriage cause less marriage in the straight community? Do you think there will be a sudden rush of straight people who switch sides and decide to marry a same sex person? Or is it more likely that your argument doesn't hold water? If you are saying that the financial security of marriage raises kids out of poverty, then you must mandate that married couples both have jobs. Your argument is out in left field, doesn't make sense under further scrutiny. Now if you are simply against gay marriage because of your ideology, then say so and stop making stupid arguments that have no real basis in fact. At least then those in your court with half a brain could still respect you, but right now you simply look foolish for making such a lame argument.
Conservatives are nothing less than a freakshow whose words will be read by historians in the future, and the humiliations keeps on giving.
I can't believe this thread is still open for comments....it is Rand Paul people. Move on already.
rand Paul: as irrelevant today as he was yesterday.
Why are they so concerned about gay couples getting married. It they are that concerned with using the Bible as law, why don't they push to deny adulterers like Mark Sanford the right to marry. At least they can justify that as against the 10 commandments rather than some obscure selections from the Bible. But no they will push for Mark Sanford to be in elected office at the same time try to deny gay people of any rights. Make no sense.
Comparing same sex marriage to bestiality is not a socially liberal view, or even a libertarian view. I knew he was just a knockoff of his father. This proves it. Next time somebody tries to claim this guy is a libertarian, I will have some handy dandy little quotes for them.
Ummmm..... read the second to last paragraph, "Paul said the ruling was appropriate and the issue should be left to the states'. Libertarians are hated by statist conservatives and liberals alike. They must be doing something very well.
"What he was discussing was that having the state recognize marriage without definition could lead to marriages with no basis in reality."
I have a gay Great Dane who is very interested in Rand Paul. I'm just worried that Rand won't accept his proposal or take it seriously.
Gary D. wrote page 4:
Frankly, why should the government be in the marriage-regulation business at all?
It's not for religious purposes.....it's solely for tax collection purposes, and to prove the existence of a relationship.
Uh, huh. And once we strip away the federal government, then we strip away state and then local governments until everyone is living on the open range again before state borders were created.
If you've never seen the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", then I highly recommend it. The issues at stake are capitalist driven libertarians against middle class families looking for protection from gun slinging rogues.
He's a Libertarian. They want everything legal. Talk about throwing stones.
Those conservatives who are bigoted and narrow minded are NUTS without having facts. Boy with rolling my eyes up! Sigh!
Something is bad wrong with Rand Paul. It's like the Paul boys are functionally insane.