Rand Paul

Rand Paul Says Non-Human Marriage Response Was Sarcasm

His reaction to Supreme Court gay marriage ruling left some confused

|

Yesterday, during an interview about gay marriage conducted by Glenn Beck, Sen. Rand Paul appeared to have a Santorum moment. "If we have no laws on this," said Paul, "people take it to one extension further—does it have to be humans? You know?" It came off as incredibly strange, as Paul has said quite a few times that government might do well to excuse itself from marriage altogether.

The explanation, from his office:

Sarcasm sometimes doesn't translate adequately from radio conversation. 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.

NEXT: Steve Chapman on Why the Voting Rights Act Was Made for a Simpler Time

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. disappointing.

    i dont see how his explanation is different than his “sarcasm”.

    1. Ditto that. I think you can’t make a contract with a non-consenting entity. Any other sort of contract has some basis in reality then, dealing with sentient beings as it does. So why not same sex marriage, or even polygamous or polyandrous ones. Would a linear marriage, as described in Heinlein’s “Time enough for Love” be so bad or outlandish?

  2. Claims of being bi-gendered, or tri-gendered, or quadra-specied don’t seem silly at all.

    Someone wishing to marry their pet billy goat won’t be hindered by me. I’m for freedom for everyone.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.