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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
disappointing.
i dont see how his explanation is different than his "sarcasm".
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?
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.