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.
From CNN Politics
- These 5 states will be the first to kick residents off Medicaid starting in April
- 10 Cards Charging 0% Interest Until 2024
- Inside the long and winding road to Trump's historic indictment
- Listen: After negotiating a peace deal, Jimmy Carter taught this Bible class
- Abortion foes take aim at ballot initiatives in next phase of post-Dobbs political fights
- Untitled
Yeah, right–please please please run for president in 2016 - I need the laughter
Clearly, the Right is simply jealous that gay marriage is being condoned, while THEIR bestiality is still considered perversion.
If gay's are born gay then pedophiles are born pedophiles.
Eliminate marriage as a legal concept. Kill the tax penalties. Screw the family only concept in hospitals. Make inheritance equal among any recipient. Allow insurance to attach any dependents as long as they can prove economic reliance. Problem solved. Throw out baby Jesus with the bath water.
When you stop to think about it, to suggest gay marriage would lead to marrying an animal is saying gays are somehow less human than straight people. Otherwise, why would two humans getting married (gay or straight) then lead to a human marrying an animal?
Considering Paul is against big gubment butting its head in places it doesn't belong (as long as it benefits him). His beliefs on marriage and abortion are contradictory to his other libertarian beliefs. Typical conservative. The liberals are no better by any means. The government needs to stay out of the bedroom and out of a decision between a woman and HER doctor, some bureaucrat has no right to tell a woman what she should and shouldn't do with her body.
Sarcasm. Ya right, and pigs fly don't they. No he meant every word as it's part of his beliefs. Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes. He would be better if he kept his trap shut, then they wouldn't have to try to excuse his remarks, which seem to be happening a lot lately with the GOP and their allies.
"That remark, his office said, wasn't meant to be taken seriously."
We don't. But then, neither do we take seriously Paul's potential presidential candidacy.
Aww, you mean he was just kidding?
I would like to see him get it from a few well endowed stallions.
Rand Paul is living proof the nut does not fall to far from the tree.
The problem we have in our country is that EVERYTHING ties back to MONEY and GREED. People would not even seriously consider half of the stupid dung they attempt (aka marry an animal) if it weren't for their ability to file a law suit or get a fugging tax break.
Animals can't sign the marriage contract to make it legal. When they can, I will marry all of your gay cats!
yah, well, what did we expect? brilliance?
I do not find Rand Paul saying anything about bestiality in this article. Is CNN implying that not humans means only animals?
Why is this a controversial remark? Did you not listen to the arguments before the Supreme Court? Did you not listen to the line of questions by Justice Sotomayor? If you were a Republican, and asked the same questions she asked during the hearings on David Letterman, you would be pilloried as a bigot. This false attempt to manufacture outrage is so typical of CNN.
he's only a libertarian that is gay for big corporations. follow his senate votes (and lack-thereof) he's no libertarian. he's a typical conservative with a hard on for the rich. a true libertarian would have a socially liberal world view. (ahem..hence the "liber" part of "lbertarian,")
They just keep making themselves look stupid with these comments. If they really can't tell the difference between two consenting adults and someone using an animal there's no helping them. but I thought Libertarians weren't into controlling peoples' private lives anyway??
i love this logic – "If gay's are born gay then pedophiles are born pedophiles."
maybe, i'm not a psychologist..but here's the main difference genius – kids are not consenting adults.
Beastiality...would explain a lot of Republican births.
Why should my comment need moderation when I just said that there is no helping someone who can't tell the difference between 2 consenting adults in love and using an animal? And that I thought Libertarians weren't known for meddling in peoples' private lives?
Let's be rational. He is right about the logical consequences, isn't he? If we can redefine marriage, then what about the ratio, (polygamy) which is actually going on in some places? Not long ago, a contributing author in CNN wrote an article about polygamy, justifying it with the fact that among animals, monogamy is unnatural.
Come on, guys, Paul didn't suggest that striking down DOMA could lead to legalized bestiality. He just sorta brought it up in a discussion of DOMA in a way that strongly suggested that striking it down might lead to legalized bestiality. But sarcastically.
That's OK Rand Paul spokesperson, we didn't take Paul's comment seriously ,just like all his other laughable comments. What a loser!
Just another Republican bigot finally rearing his ugly mind for all to see. How can anyone be a party to that?