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. Pat

    As long as the beast can consent...

    June 27, 2013 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm |
  2. us_1776

    Well, so much for that Libertarian stuff.


    June 27, 2013 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm |
  3. rs

    "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."
    i guess we also need to shout out the Right's apocolyptic nonsesne as well- believe me my froend- only medicated people believe what you do, and they don't add any real meat to the conversation either.

    June 27, 2013 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm |
  4. Dano

    Ah yes the old gay marriage/bestiality comparison. It's one of the conservative talking points that all GOPers must learn and recite any time gay marriage is discussed if they want to continue receiving the bible thumper vote.

    June 27, 2013 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  5. WeDontMatter

    Rand Paul is the poster boy for why Kentucky voters should never admit that they vote.

    June 27, 2013 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  6. Fair is Fair

    "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."
    Running out of material?

    June 27, 2013 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  7. Organic1

    I guess falling into the cesspool for the GOP is natural... WTG Paul – give everyone a real view of your ignorance.

    June 27, 2013 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  8. Eric Ekstrom

    Well, Rand Paul, it isn't up to the churches either. It is only up to God: From Hebrews 13:4 ESV
    "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous."

    Politicians who don't stay away from attempting to control other peoples lives will suffer the most horrible judgment by God. Clearly, marriage is for all, as it clearly states in the Torah and the Bible.

    June 27, 2013 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm |
  9. Denise

    Most of the "available" animals, those not already in a committed, loving relationship, reside in red states.....just sayin....

    June 27, 2013 12:19 pm at 12:19 pm |
  10. Clinker

    Uh, no Sheldon, that's not sarcasm..........

    June 27, 2013 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm |
  11. Tony

    Glen Beck's argument is based on a false reality. Animals are not people. It is not illegal to kill cows for food, but it is illegal to kill people for food. There is no legal transitive property of equality when it comes to people and animals.

    June 27, 2013 12:22 pm at 12:22 pm |
  12. JeffreyRO5

    "Polygamy should be legal no different then as same sex marriage or marriage."

    Actually, there's a very big difference. Gay and lesbian Americans were being denied the right to have a spouse. Polygamists are being denied the right to have more than one spouse. It is two very different things to tell someone they can't get married at all, and they can't have more than one spouse. And frankly, with easy divorce, polygamists can satisfy their urge for more than one spouse with the Rush Limbaugh serial polygamy plan: wife, divorce, wife, divorce, wife, divorce, wife, etc.

    June 27, 2013 12:22 pm at 12:22 pm |
  13. joet

    So was Mitt's 47% comment. Speaking of Mitt, Rand Paul, mentioned poligamy, what about devout Mormons.

    June 27, 2013 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm |
  14. Alina1

    Nobody wins from people like Rand Raul only Glenn Beck show wins.

    June 27, 2013 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm |
  15. Grumpy2012

    Ryan's right. We've started down a slippery slope.

    But – if there wasn't the financial gains to be had, tax breaks, better "family" insurance rates, and beneficiary benefits, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Marriage has always been a sacrament of the church, like baptism. I don't see any clamor about gays and lesbians being baptized.

    June 27, 2013 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm |
  16. billmosby

    Sure, polygamy would be just fine. Right.....
    Ask the "lost boys" thrown out of Colorado City just how fine their lives are. If polygamy were to expand to any extent at all, the problems with it would become evident very quickly.

    June 27, 2013 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm |
  17. Citizen

    Well, Rand Paul is a Libeterian, and they do say that they want government out of our lives as much as possible. Freudian slip on his part, perhaps?

    June 27, 2013 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm |
  18. freeprizeguru

    The CNN Jewish smear on Rand Paul begins early. Clearly a story to gather hate towards someone fighting against bank and corporation wars and greed. This will all come to a end when liberty is restored in The United States.

    June 27, 2013 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm |
  19. anon

    Well since we've come to this subject, then I also don't think it should be against the law for consenting adults to marry, regardless of the number. If someone wants there own harem, then the govt. should butt out.

    And though I realize that animals cannot enter into a marriage covenant. the law against sexual intercourse with them should also be done away with. It is common sense, after all, that if the animal isn't restrained, and continues to stand there, then it is automatically assumed they are giving their consent, right? If someone was mute, and didn't appear to be resisting, and just laid there rather content looking, then in a court of law the defendant PROBABLY wouldn't get convicted, or even charged.

    Slippery slope.

    June 27, 2013 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  20. billmosby

    To Data Driven: there are "new" elderly people being minted every day. It just might be that their concerns won't be all that different from the "old" elderly people. lol.

    June 27, 2013 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  21. Ron L

    This is just one person attempting to justify something based on their beliefs nad irrational fears. Here is the bottom line, less than 30 years ago biracial marriage was the BIG THREAT against society. Now the BIG THREAT is gay marriage. What Mr. Paul and all these other busy bodies need to do is realize that DIVORCE is the threat to marriage. That we need to quit worrying about the 10% of the gay population that wants to get married because it is a symbol of commitment, and figure out how do we explain to the other 90% that has a divorce rate of 50% on what the word REALLY means...

    June 27, 2013 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm |
  22. JJ

    Slips of the tongue like this are insights to the true nature of perverts. It probably explains why Rand's farm animals are so stressed out.

    June 27, 2013 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm |
  23. regenesis0

    I guess he doesn't want to be President after all.

    June 27, 2013 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm |
  24. Tomi Roshi

    Polygamy is already legal it's called dating.

    June 27, 2013 12:28 pm at 12:28 pm |
  25. Alan

    I hate to agree with Glen Beck, but he's right this time. The Supreme Court has started us down a very slippery slope. If the government has no right to tell us who we can marry, they also have no right to tell us how MANY we can marry. How can the government now forbid marriage to more than one person? How about marrying a relative, cousin, brother or sister?
    I've read many comments saying the government has no right to govern marriage. If so, they also have no right to require a marriage license before we can get married. As long as both partners are over 21, from now on, anything goes, right?

    June 27, 2013 12:28 pm at 12:28 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