Rand Paul bestiality comment 'sarcasm,' office says
June 27th, 2013
10:24 AM ET
1 year ago

Rand Paul bestiality comment 'sarcasm,' office says

(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.


Filed under: Rand Paul • Same-sex marriage
soundoff (582 Responses)
  1. timd

    Who cares who marries who? I thought he was libertarian. You know – keep the government out of my business and all that rot.

    Oh wait I get it, he's actually an @sshatatarian.

    June 27, 2013 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm |
  2. Realityblowz

    When this man debates Hillary Clinton in the next presidential debate, watch as she folds like a house of cards. The massive debt that this administration has placed on this nation, will result in the downfall of Democrats and Rinos.

    June 27, 2013 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm |
  3. just sayin

    polygamy is definitely going to be legalized. why should the government care if i have one wife or ten? so how is the federal government goin gto modify their benefits to support this? i can hardly wait until the entire can of worms is let loose.

    June 27, 2013 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  4. steven

    good grief, couldn't he be a little more original than compare gay marriage to bestiality? i mean, what if i want to marry my armoire, i should be able to do that right?

    June 27, 2013 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm |
  5. janer52

    the combination of rand paul and glenn beck is truly outstanding. seriously...why would anyone listen to that garbage? oh that's right...the sheeple of the gop.

    June 27, 2013 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm |
  6. Rockin

    Looks like most everyone commenting here only read the first half of the article. That's about what I expected.

    June 27, 2013 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm |
  7. datbikerguy

    Bahahaha no matter what side of anything you're on – you have to admit that republicans love digging their own graves over and over and over. It's fantastic. I'm not a political person at all – I just call em how I see em.

    June 27, 2013 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  8. ride

    What's your fascination?
    I'm curious – really. What is this argument, as it relates to gay marriage, that next they'll be allowing marriage to animals & inanimate objects? Do those that use this argument have some sort of secret yearning or fascination to have relations with a stray animal or a waffle iron? Is it some sort of Ted Haggard closet thing where you say that you don't like something but secretly practice it when no-one is watching?

    June 27, 2013 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  9. Old Okie

    Don't think you guys are getting it. They are talking marriage not sex. If the decision is taken that "one step further" and some State were to allow people to marry their pet(s) the Government would require that all Federal benefits be applied to their “spouse”. Income tax deductions, Social Security disability…… So the cat lady would make out like a bandit!

    June 27, 2013 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  10. Billy

    He's right, leave it up to the states. Marriage needs to be defined because it affects our taxes. How many times do we want the definition changed? Who is to make that call, other than the states? Marriage was taken from Christianity which has a strict definition. Our government made it secular but they used the same name. So why is the name so important to gay people? 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.

    June 27, 2013 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  11. mickey

    the republicans disagree on these issues? their issues are abortion, women's rights and gay rights!!! STILL!! how many elections do they want to lose before they kick the evangelicals to the curb and get back to their Goldwater roots?

    June 27, 2013 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  12. Steve Johnson

    He wasn't being sarcastic.

    This is a very common meme among right wingers, to compare homosexuality to beastiality.

    They know exactly what they're saying and exactly how it makes people feel.

    June 27, 2013 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  13. joe

    jon stossell made a better point. The goverment should not be in the marriage bussiness at all Marry who or what you want its your buisness unlike libs who follow the same path reb think on there own and dont always agree

    June 27, 2013 12:37 pm at 12:37 pm |
  14. Rick McDaniel

    The Dems will condone anything..........why shouldn't we expect that to be accepted at some point in time, when they run out of other things to push.?

    June 27, 2013 12:37 pm at 12:37 pm |
  15. Billy

    So all of you libs are all for polygamy... one man marrying 45 women, right? And all the government benefits (your tax money) that goes along with it? Wait, no you're not? Bigot!

    June 27, 2013 12:37 pm at 12:37 pm |
  16. sbul

    The leading cause of poverty in America is "NO JOBS"! As well as, wealth inequality (increasing wealth to the wealthiest and less for the rest of us) and jobs that pay demeaning wages (WalMart, etc.) . If he is really concerned about poverty in America why isn't he working hard on jobs for Americans and increasing the minimum wage? Sarcasm is just "hidden anger" he's obviously angry over the SCOTUS decision.

    June 27, 2013 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  17. Lawless4U

    What Sen Paul isn't smart enough to understand that marrigae is a completely different issue than sex. No one has been trying to outlaw homosexuality.

    June 27, 2013 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  18. Jerrold E. Fink

    Should slavery; misengenation laws;poll taxes; women stay at home laws be left to the states? And where is the consistency. These same state righters rushed through federal legislation to interfere with Florida's consistent state rulings in the Terry Sciavo case.
    These advocates engage in selective morality and selective, inconsistent legal analysis.

    Also, if what Mr. Paul and others believe is correct about two parent families, let's outlaw divorce and require people to uphold their sacred vows.

    Finally, overlooked in all the hubbub about yesterday's ruling is the Constitution's full faith and credit requirement. If a heterosexual couple marrys in a state permitting marraige at 14 or among first cousins, or a state which permits a no fault divorce and the individuals involved move to a state with a different. contrary law and public policy regarding marraige/divorce, the second state will invariably recognize the prior marraige/divorce.
    Accordingly, if a gay couple weds in New York or one of the other states permitting gay marraige and that couple relocate to a state which does not, under the full faith and credit provisions, as well as the equal protection clause ( benefits the state recognizes for certain relocated marraiges/divorces but not others) should require recognition of the marraige.

    June 27, 2013 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  19. c-lo

    All you whiners crack me up...did you stop reading half way through???? He said he AGREED with the SCOTUS. Just becuase this liberal rag of a "news" organization decides to frame him in the worst possible light...What would you all have been saying if the headline, also appropropriately, would have read "Republican Rand Paul supports the SCOTUS decision on gay marrage"?

    In terms of the ruling itself, I applaud it, I cannot wait to "marry" some rich guy on his death bed so my wife and I can recieve his estate tax free. Then once my wife passes away, I'll marry my step daughters so I can pass our estate to them tax free. Who the he11 is the gov't to say who I can and cannot marry and be merry?

    I neither condone, nor condemn any of this, but I hope EVERYONE understands the long term consequences...my ultimate happy place on this would be to eliminate state recognized marriage all together, and have co-inhabitant contracts that allow for the visitation/medical/adoptive and other "legalalities" of state recognized marriage, eliminate any and all inheritance/estate/death taxes, SS and other partner/spouse "benefits" (i.e. federal enti tlements). If you want to co-habitate with your uncle/sister/kid, etc and give them access to make decisions for you on your death bed, and bequeath them the stuff YOU earned throughout your life, why does the Gov't have any business taking that from your heirs? If you libs love the gov't so much, make Unkle Sam (misspelling intentional) your beneficiary.

    June 27, 2013 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  20. Gordon

    It's one thing to allow TWO same-sex or opposite-sex people to marry. If it comes down to divorce, the property can be divided up. But what happens when multiple people want to get married? How could any judge decide logically who gets what? It's not a matter of morality as much as practicality.

    June 27, 2013 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  21. spudnik56

    Glenn Beck...Americas idiot...

    June 27, 2013 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  22. Lawless4U

    I thought libertarians wanted the government OUT of private citizen's business?

    June 27, 2013 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  23. Jim

    Rand Paul is trying to create a slippery slope by covering everything in BS

    June 27, 2013 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm |
  24. Syd

    Love how these loonies freak out at healthy snacks and progressive tax rates, but think it's fine and dandy to tell people who they're allowed to wed. Hypocritize much?

    June 27, 2013 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm |
  25. rs

    just sayin

    polygamy is definitely going to be legalized. why should the government care if i have one wife or ten? so how is the federal government goin gto modify their benefits to support this? i can hardly wait until the entire can of worms is let loose.
    _______________
    Well, one could certainly use the Bible to demand plural marriage. Having said that however, I haven't heard that call from anywhere, and the U.S. is still not a theocracy.

    June 27, 2013 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24