Rand Paul bestiality comment 'sarcasm,' office says
June 27th, 2013
10:24 AM ET
10 years 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. dtcpr

    Another commenter said that liberals base their views on "emotions" which makes them wrong basically. Many conservatives base their views on their morality which also has no basis in reality. They base their opinions on a set of rules handed down through religion, on what an omipresent god believes, something that they cannot proove. Additionally, we are the only 1st world country where major political leaders wholeheartedly reject scientific evidence of evolution and climate change, which is done on the right-wing conservative end of the spectrum.

    Not all liberals are the same and not all conservatives are the same. If we could simply stand back and stop letting people fill our minds with their thoughts and their opinions and took some time to look into issues and educate ourselves, I think we would find that we all agree more than we realize. Instead, politics is completely polarized with one side sticking to the church fed beliefs and the other side pushing further and further away from center as a reaction. Let's use common sense people.

    June 27, 2013 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  2. MI Snow

    Well so much for Rand's libertarian convictions.

    June 27, 2013 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  3. Rudy NYC

    scott wrote on page 1:

    "You have hit the nail on the head...The moron and his buddy Beck should not be allowed to talk. And the media (CNN) should not cover it."
    Why should they not be allowed to talk its a free country, first amendment, or are you a loony liberals that believes no one has a right to talk if they do not agree with your views. After all we have to listen to Obama, Pelosi,Reid and other idoits.
    I agree. If Paul says something controversial, then why sweep it under the rug? That's exactly how he's gotten as far as he has. Paul and others make these offensive remarks when they think everyone listening is "one of us" and there will be no repercussions. If Paul said, then print it.

    June 27, 2013 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  4. Denise

    Animals have more sense than Paul; they wouldn't want him either.

    June 27, 2013 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
  5. 1nd3p3nd3nt

    paul doesn't understand the definition of sarcasm.
    that, or he's purposefully lying in an attempt to get out of trouble.

    June 27, 2013 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
  6. kippyafd

    @ 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.

    June 27, 2013 11:48 am at 11:48 am |
  7. Cliff A

    About Rand Paul ... whatever with my eyes rolling up!

    June 27, 2013 11:49 am at 11:49 am |
  8. TM

    "Speaking to conservative radio host Glenn Beck" There's the problem right there Senator. You're trying to be taken seriously as a potential Presidential candidate, and you go and remove any chance for success.

    June 27, 2013 11:49 am at 11:49 am |
  9. sparky

    Well Randy, you know law like you know eyes. Which is for crap. In order for 2 "variables" to enter into a legal binding contract those variables would have to say so and/or sign their name saying so. No why is a construction worker giving a US senator legal advice?

    put down the mousse and pick up the books imbecile

    June 27, 2013 11:49 am at 11:49 am |
  10. amanda

    I'm am enjoying all you morons making fun of one of the last few guys defending your freedoms.

    Call homosexuality whatever you want, but it'll never be a marriage...it's an exchange of ecoli via the oral fecal transfer method. Thus the 90% HIV rate among homosexuals.

    June 27, 2013 11:51 am at 11:51 am |
  11. Harry

    @Jeff it isnt about procreating. Of course a brother and sister can procreate. The difference is unlike non related couples incest HAS been proven to cause harm to people. Namely the high risk of birth defects in their offspring. Incest is illegal to try to reduce that outcome. As for polygamy... eh it was legal once it could be again. None of my business or concern. As long as it is consensual and does not violate any other laws im all for it. Look at the bright side... now it can be two men and two women all married with each other 😛

    June 27, 2013 11:51 am at 11:51 am |
  12. Amy

    Polygamy should be as legal as same sex marriage. Consenting Adult should be free to enter into any agreement they choose Polygamy, same sex, cohabiting its no ones business. . Bestiality would never be allowed an animal is unable to give consent or enter into a contract.

    June 27, 2013 11:52 am at 11:52 am |
  13. BinFL

    Is this nutcase going to be shoved in our faces from now until the 2016 primaries? Of course if he keeps making stupid statements and allegations hopefully he won't make it out of the primaries. He would be very dangerous as President!

    June 27, 2013 11:52 am at 11:52 am |
  14. HenryMiller

    "Paul said he thought the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA was appropriate and said the issue should be one left to the states."

    Close, but not quite—It should be left "to the States respectively, or to the people," just like it says in the Tenth Amendment, preferably to the latter. Why any government should have a say in the relationship of any number of consenting adults of any mix of sexes escapes me.

    June 27, 2013 11:52 am at 11:52 am |
  15. Johnny

    He has a very good point. Now all the other deviants will come out of the closet and marry animals, tree's, etc.

    June 27, 2013 11:52 am at 11:52 am |
  16. mikeretired

    Dear Glenn, you could never find more than one wife even with all of your money.

    June 27, 2013 11:53 am at 11:53 am |
  17. Former GOP

    ......and then the RADICAL RIGHT wonders ....WHY THEY CANNOT WIN A NATIONAL RACE?

    June 27, 2013 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  18. Raoul Duke, Jr.

    Rand Paul is living proof that bestiality actually has occurred.

    June 27, 2013 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  19. w l jones

    Why not take it a step farther by by dogs father childern by human and dog fathers pigs with a Sour. Said enough.

    June 27, 2013 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  20. scott

    rand paulcould be all the potential candidates he wants to be...doesnt mean he will win anything....second, randy talks to glen beck about bestality...well they both speak from experience...

    June 27, 2013 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  21. Leftcoastrocky

    Rand Paul has one heck of a sense of humor.

    June 27, 2013 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  22. exred

    Yeah, it's sarcasm. Just like that joke about watermelons in the rose garden is sarcasm.

    June 27, 2013 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  23. John The Electrician

    The leading cause of poverty is lack of income. Duh.

    June 27, 2013 11:56 am at 11:56 am |
  24. The Other Dale

    His backpedaling doesn't work. If he was being sarcastic with Beck, then he means that this whole beastiality thing is just a joke and that Gay Marriages don't lead to it. Therefore, his stance becomes one of being FOR Gay Marriages, which obviously isn't his intention. Hence, grasping at the "I was only joking" straw makes him out to be a terrible public speaker who doesn't know what he's saying before he speaks it. Of course, time has proven this to consistently be the case with Paul, so nothing new there, I guess. Still, a shameful remark and an idiotic attempt to cover-up for it.

    As for the idiotic kneejerk response of "let's make incest and polygamy legal then or else you're a hypocrite!", – e.g. the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument – such individuals obviously do not undestand the concept going on here in the first place and therefore any argument with them is a moot point.

    June 27, 2013 11:56 am at 11:56 am |
  25. Amy

    Polygamy should be legal no different then as same sex marriage or marriage. Adults have a right to choose how they want to live and whom to marry. Bestiality would never happen because the animal can not enter into a contract or give consent.

    June 27, 2013 11:57 am at 11:57 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24