(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.
First off for a Senator he should have know when it comes to a civil marraige which the Sumpreme Court's decision is dealing with; it's not a reliogious one. It's about equal application of the law. Being a bigamist or what ever is equal illegal for all American citizens while legal marriage was not.
If your armoire can give informed consent. I'm all for it.
Did anyone read the full article? He was truly being sarcastic. He supported the Supreme Court decision.... DID ANYONE READ THAT?
His bestiality "sarcastic comment" was just to point out the need for the government to define marriage... HE OPPOSES OUTRIGHT LEGISLATION OF RELIGIOUS MORALS.
With Rand Paul's logic, once we gave women the right to vote, the next logical step was to give men 5 votes, or men 5 votes and women 4 votes, or anything. How come once we gave people the right to marry someone of a different race, marrying animals didn't come next?
Whenever liberals think of gay and lesbians getting married, they think of happy families, happy couples, people in love, etc. Whenever the Rand Pauls, Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs think of it, they think of bestiality, people marrying children, and who knows what. Who's the mentally sound one now?
They throw this argument out once the "redefining" marriage hurt straight couples in some way we can't really articulate logically argument gets stale.
Who cares if polygamy is legalized? That affects me about as much as gay marriage. Look at all these "Party of Family values" hypocrites that turn out to be gay or get caught cheating on their wives. Having someone tell you something is morally wrong will do exactly nothing to stop you if you disagree. Further, who's going to be marrying animals if that's legalized? You think it's going to be atheists and democrats? Nope, it's going to be that church going republican southern demographic. And no one can argue with me on that.
Most of the "available" animals, those not already in a committed, loving relationship, reside in red states.....just sayin....
Good one Denise!!
I find it interesting Mr Paul used a Muslim Marriage of multiple wives as an example of the problems this ruling could cause, and not the more commonly known Mormon multiple marriages. I guess Muslims are another group of people Republican's have no interest in recruiting.
First off for a Senator he should have know when it comes to a civil marriage which the Supreme Court's decision is dealing with; it's not a religious one. It's about equal application of the law. Being a bigamist or whatever is equally illegal for all American citizens while legal marriage was not.
I don't have a problem with plural marriage as long as all the participants meet the standard of being informed and are consenting. Children and animals can not give consent, pretty simple. There should also be something in there about being able to AFFORD to be married to multiple partners, in other words no welfare for some lazy ... with a gang of kids, all on public assistance. In fact, that should be the law even if there are only 2 people being married.
They made the EXACT same arguments against interracial marriage.
I'm white, my wife is black. If these folks had their way we would not be happily married now. And their arguments against interracial marriage is being repeated, often verbatim, in this debate today.
Senator Paul says the darnedest things.Where did he get his ideas this time? When does he do his job as a Senator. He seems to be out speaking even when Congress is in session. Every day in every way he is trying to win the nomination for President in 2916. Why else would he be on he campaign trail.
There are many people like Sen. Paul who want the government to "spy" on others who do believe as they do. They would dictate what we should believe and what we could or should do in the privacy of our own homes. Their beliefs are the only ones that count. They would readily push their religion onto the rest of us because their religion is the only one that counts.
I have a beautiful tree in my front yard, I love that tree, Hum...... That's sarcasm. Some are wondering about poligamy and I say it should also be legal. After all the Bible has many references to "wives" as in more than one. It's only recently that it's been against the law, for the rest of history it has been perfectly acceptable. I would love to have a few wives that way if they want to have a conversation during a football game they can talk to each other. (more sarcasm)
No one ought to say that Mr. paul or Mr. Beck do not have the right to say such stuff, because obviously they do.
Having said that, the question is: "should they say that?", and the answer is obvious. Uttering such nonsense only makes Mr. Paul (and by extension the GOP) sound absolutely idiotic- worse is trying to pass off such idiocy as "sarcasm".
Look, the GOP and its characters are trying to resonate with their looney base. That's great, but everyone else hears it too, and the GOP becomes to party of people too silly to run for national office. That's a real problem in a two-party political system because it means (hevaen forbid) the only people serious about running the U.S. is the Democratic Party, and while they are clearly doing a better job than the Right, we, the people should have a choice. The party advocating for beastiality and plural marriage simply isn't it.
"'What is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country?' It's having kids without marriage," Paul said."
Yeah, nothing at all to to do with the low minimum wage. <<<< Sarcasm.
Were Bozo The Clown and Glenn Beck separated at birth? Or is the red nose from all the years Beck was an unemployed, alcoholic dropout?
This person is such an ignorant donkey rear! I can't stand it. Please stop comparing love between two consenting, intelligent adults to bestiality. I'm sorry this moron's parents bred...look at the horrible BEAST THEY PUSHED OUT. What a disgusting and pathetic example of a human being.
Hey Rand, quit saying mean things about Bristol Palin. She's done quite well financially!
Anyone who listened to Rand Paul and Glen Beck has to be just and "crazy" as they are... Stay out of peoples bedrooms... All the see is the SEX part. Gay people are more stable in relations and hetrosexuals. So if all you can see is just one part of this issue then you are very narrow minded . I have met many gay couples and I marvel at their commitment to each other.. We are Canadians, we tend to be more enlightened than our fellow Americans.
It's only sarcasm to the peple criticizing him. To his supporters he was speaking from the heart right to them.
I hate to tell you this guys but polygamy between consenting adults should be legal as should gay marriage. It is not the governments job to dictate who can marry who as long as both partys can legally consent (children and animals cant consent). The morality of your marriage isn't for the government to decide its for god to decide and he will have the final say in that when the time comes. To say gay marriage or polygamy isn't as strong and heterosexual marriage is a cop out. Heterosexual marriage end up in divorce 50% of the time anyway so I doubt it will be much worse rates for gay or plural marriage.
Allowing hetero marriage no more means that we shouldn't allow bestiality, or plural marriages than does allowing same sex marriage. So, if people are confused about why we don't allow bestiality if we allow same sex marriages, then they must also be confused about why we don't allow bestiality if we allow hetero marriages. So, among anti-same-sex marriage people there must either be confusion about why if we allow hetero marriage we don't also allow bestiality, or they must just not see the hypocrisy of applying the bestiality slippery-slope argument to only same-sex marriage and not hetero marriage.
Dominican mama......It's so ridiculous! While on my early morning walk, I decided to become gay. I saw the deer running through the fields in a different light too! I couldn't take my eyes off of them......
The "slipper slope" could have been avoided if all the heterosexual couples in marriages had agreed to forego the 1,100 Federal laws that only applied to "married" couples.
As a teacher, I remember being told to avoid sarcasm at all costs. The problem with an alpha-male like RP is that he duznt have the sexual imagination needed to understand the reality. It's the same confusion that people associate pedophilia with gays when in fact heteros can be pedophiles but not gay. In fact, most pedophiles are heterosexuals!
The leading cause of poverty in this country is a lack of education, not whether or not someone has a child outside of marriage.