-9 votes

Maddow's Blog on Rand's DOMA Comments on Glenn Beck's Show -Rand Paul fears humans marrying non-humans

From her Facebook: Reactions to the DOMA ruling varied widely throughout the political world. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), for example, talked to Glenn Beck about his fears of post-DOMA bestiality.

Doesn't the senator consider himself some kind of libertarian?

Post-DOMA, Rand Paul fears humans marrying non-humans

It seems much of the media establishment has decided Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) deserves to be taken seriously. He's made seven Sunday show appearances since February; the New York Times recently described Paul has one of his party's "rising stars"; and the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza last week referred to the Kentucky Republican as "the most interesting politician in the country" and "the most interesting man in the (political) world."

And yet, it's difficult to reconcile the media adulation and Rand Paul's occasional crackpot tendencies.

Earlier today, for example, the senator appeared on Glenn Beck's show to discuss, among other things, the Supreme Court's ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. The host suggested the ruling could lead to polygamy: "If you change one variable -- man and a woman to man and man, and woman and woman -- you cannot then tell me that you can't logically tell me you can't change the other variable -- one man, three women. Uh, one woman, four men.... If I'm a devout Muslim and I come over here and I have three wives, who are you to say if I'm an American citizen, that I can't have multiple marriages."

For Paul, this seemed perfectly sensible. In fact, the senator went even further than Beck. Here's the entirety of Rand Paul's response, in which the senator said he's "kind of with" the unhinged host.

"I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening -- whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?

"You know, I mean, so there really are, the question is what social mores, can some social mores be part of legislation? Historically we did at the state legislative level, we did allow for some social mores to be part of it. Some of them were said to be for health reasons and otherwise, but I'm kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It's having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we're punting on it, marriage can be anything."

Raise your hand if you think Rand Paul has any idea what he's talking about.

More here: http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/26/19156364-post-d...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The marriage "equality"

The marriage "equality" argument makes no sense if you are going to deny the same rights to poligamists or to human/non-human relationships. From an marriage "equality" point of view what is the argument against equality in poligamous marriages?

Rand is BLOWING IT...The SHILL helps him to do it...

This arseinine comment is going to follow him around to the ends of the earth....Rand just made himself look like an idiot...handed the left a reason to demonize him on a platter....Beck is the shilliest os SHILLS....A perfect shill trap and Rand fell for it....I thought he would have known better....

What he should have said was gvt has no business in marriage PERIOD....End of sentence end of story...

Rand fails when he tries to be funny...he needs to stick to being authentic and telling the truth about gvt corruption and stay focused on constitutional law.....set the jokes and personal ideology aside...

I have been somewhat hopeful that Rand could bring people from the left right and center together in a whole new way....outside of the rhetoric with a focus on civil liberties....He is blowing this opportunity if he continues down this path....

The acceptance of gays in our culture is a ship that has already sailed...I personally don't understand folks who have a problem with it...but that aside more importantly as a country we don't need big daddy to tell is who we can marry and who we can't....it sickens me that a stamp of approval by the SC is necessary for equal access to individual rights that we already have been given by way of the constitution....

I hope Rand has the opportunity to redeem himself....but surely that comment isn't going away....

Give thanks to Beck for the platform....

An appropriate response...

Rand's response should have been:

" I don't see the big deal, Glenn. A voluntary contract between two people is none of the governments business. Morally, we should be nurturing our family, and instilling values at the community level. You can't legislate morality or beliefs, otherwise you become a two-bit tyrant.

Remember Glenn, there was a time when the majority of people thought Mormonism was immoral and dangerous. If it wasn't for a 1000 miles of land separating the Mormons from the rest of the population, they would have continued to round up and exterminate your fellow parishioners."

www.coinaxis.com - ~ Learn more about bitcoin/litecoin, and how they relate to the liberty movement.

A divorced friend once said.

After a costly divorce he said. If sheep could cook their would be a bounty on woman. That was BAAAAaaaaad. Then he remarried and changed his mind.

Goats

Yes, because in reality there has been a major rash of people marrying their goats without government permission? They have organized politically and are demanding the government not only recognize their goat-spouses, but also give them tax breaks as if the goat partner was human? If only they had a marriage license to make it all legal....?!? Oh, and person-goat marriages should be allowed by the government to adopt children... either humans or goat kids or both?!? Rand, put down the crack pipe!

Defense of Marriage Act

Posted by Lew Rockwell on June 26, 2013 11:38 AM

Of course, DOMA is unconstitutional, since marriage is none of the federal government's business. Under the present system, it is a state issue. Of course, it is actually none of any government's business. Marriage--like every other contract--should be privatized, with people free to make the contracts they choose, so long as no one else's rights are violated.

It was an ill day when government began to take marriage over in the 18th century. Marriage antedates government, and unlike government, is socially beneficial.

The extension of federal payments to new classes is an unhappy development, but typical of the supremes. And note that the idea that nine lawyers can determine constitutionality is a usurpation and mentioned nowhere in the constitution.

The constitution itself was a coup, marking a huge step-up in central government power. If we are to be saddled with a national government, let it be under the far-more libertarian articles of confederation.

When something like marriage is made a matter of state, it's a license to stick your nose into other people's business. When it's private, you need not worry if some people want polygamy, or gay marriage, or Protestant marriage, or Catholic marriage, or Hindu marriage. Live and let live is possible. The state, on the other hand, always seeks to divide and rule.

well if what i read is correct

I haven't seen or read the supreme court ruling in full and sorry I'm just posting this quickly without reading your post but the supreme court basically said that in states where there is law on the books legalizing gay marriage they are considered legally married under federal law note and if they move to another state it is no longer valid. This is also a strong case for nullification in my opinion.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/hold-on-doma-wasn...

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

I'm totally missing the issue

I'm totally missing the issue with all of this. To me, essential what Rand is saying is that all of this is just a slippery slope. You can't make a ruling on one group of people without considering the fact that they aren't alone in their "battle." I maybe wrong, but I guess because people are rooting for their side, they forget that it is more out there than just them. I know a homosexual that is all about "marriage equality" but can't stand polygamy. When equality is used, we have to be careful because it really applies to all ends. Truth be told, if a man who hunches animals say he want to marry it, I wouldn't care. Ain't like he asking me to join..lol. That's live and let live to the core.

Equality in the sense implied on this issue is nonsensical.

Marriage equality is a nonsensical concept because it implies equality of outcomes, which any person who understands human anatomy can attest is nonsense. However, the notion of fairness is applicable here, and you are correct that if we are defining marriage simply by feeling love for another, why should we limit it to just 2 individual persons? America essentially conquered Utah and forced the Mormons to practice heterosexual monogamy because we found polygamy disgusting. To this day we have government agencies that will arrest polygamists and put their children into orphanages.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

He is becoming more like his

He is becoming more like his Dad, willing to stand up against the crowd.

What I find interesting about this is...

Rand is essentially engaging in classic democracy-style politics by playing every side of the coin, it's Machiavellian, but also very effective. America is an incoherent nation, and considering who has been elected president over the past several decades, incoherence sells quite well.

The only thing I'm a little concerned about is that if Rand gets to good at this his policies might become incoherent once elected, but I think his father has his ear more than people know. This is particularly helpful given that it gets sycophants like O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity to take a non-aggressive posture against him, which will help him a lot in the coming presidential primaries.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

The "gay marriage issue" is about basic human respect

People who dismiss the significance of this horrific statement are totally missing the point.

The issue is supposedly "gay marriage", but it's really about basic human respect. If you respect someone less because of their sexual preference, that's as bad as respecting them less for their skin color.

The statement is incredibly stupid and heartless. It's akin to expressing even just a hint of reluctance for allowing black/white marriages, because "if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further... does it have to be humans?"

Anyone older than 12 should have the sense to not think this, let alone say it.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

I understand where you are

I understand where you are coming from but you can't call for marriage EQUALITY without being equal to everyone and not just one group, which you seem to push the issue about. What Rand is saying is it just doesn't stop at homosexuals. Seriously, it is more than just them out there who wants their marriages approved by the federal government. Although you only focused on the man and woman, you seem to forget that it states a specific number. ONE.

Glenn Beck brought up numbers

Glenn Beck (ironically a Mormon) brought up the numbers point, which is valid. Indeed, what is the problem with letting a consenting adult marry multiple consenting adults? That's a valid question and worth discussing.

But extending the discussion to non-humans who can't legally consent by definition? That's just idiocy, and totally insensitive to the basic human dignity that this is about.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

You do realize that Rand was

You do realize that Rand was talking about the extreme end of a slippery slope? But in a society that regulates who you can and cannot marry, what makes your cause more noble than the next? Easy answer; because it is YOUR cause. Like I have stated before, it is only insensitive to those approaching this matter subjectively.

What if someone wants to

What if someone wants to marry a dog or a cow?

ANIMALS CANNOT CONSENT

Seriously. When was the last time you saw a dog or cow sign a contract?


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

They do not sign a contract

They do not sign a contract either to be with their owner. But you can see that the animal is happy. What if the animail is happy with the "marriage". I see that small animals could be hurt but larger animales would be OK.

And what about 3 consenting adults? Or 3 consenting adults and an animal? etc. etc.

anyone who is with a dog or cow will do it regardless

...but we are talking marriage in a legal sense, and animals cannot consent to contract. So that is about the stupidest direction one could take this argument. The question should be, do consenting adults have the right to voluntarily contract with one another?

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
www.tattoosbypaul.com
www.bijoustudio-atx.com

According to a lot of animal rights people...

Animals can and indeed do consent to living with their owners, and there are always contracts in matters of ownership, though naturally an animal is not able to sign off on it per say.

Rationally speaking, you are correct that this is marriage in a legal sense, but people who believe that animals should be allowed to consent to a number of things are able to vote in elections, so it could very well become law at some juncture, regardless to how crazy it actually is.

Personally, I think any person should be allowed to contract with anyone else for rights of co-habitation, and I think that the only role any government should play in it is when the contracts have been breached in settling a dispute. However, that was not what was decided at the Supreme Court law, but rather a legal permission for a certain group to share residence in exchange for tax breaks.

Single people are not entitled to tax breaks, nor are polygamists, and both groups are just as capable of adopting children as homosexual couples. Just saying.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

I don't get how folks are

I don't get how folks are failing to see that he used that as an extreme. Do you feel that way about polygamy or what if someone ask the question, why does it just have to be adults consenting if the teenager is fully aware of what is going on. Like I stated earlier, when you use the word equality, it is bigger than just one group, but that is only if you are fighting this objectively.

Rand blows it AGAIN!

Rand Paul should STFU unless he has anything to say of SUBSTANCE or call his dad and ask for some political advice.His silly statements hurt everyone on this site and his dad.

Bad move, Rand.

Bad move, Rand.

Are you sure?

What Rand said is pretty much what every Republican nominee for the presidency has said in the past. If he's running as a Republican, this isn't necessarily a bad move. Whether he can win the general election with this haunting him may be another issue, especially if you decide to join our statist commie friend Rachel Maddow in badgering Rand about it until November 2016.

Think about it.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

that's just it. Rand and those others are living in the past

No GOP Prez nominee will ever win again being anti-equality

maybe but..

Considering the lower and lower voter turnouts reach year... If there were an issue that people really felt strongly about that a nominee said they wanted to fix and people saw something that would actually change they might come out to vote in larger numbers.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

I don't know about that.

Conservative Christians have a lot more kids than homosexuals (I'm talking about procreation, not adoption), and with homeschooling becoming popular, there may be a demographic shift the other way in the coming years.

And for the record, I'm not saying I agree with Rand's statement. However, I would like to point out that the Republican Party will not embrace gay marriage in the short-term, nor will the Democratic Party embrace the U.S. Constitution in any way, shape or form during this generation. So either Rand has no chance, or Rand has no chance, by your logic.

If you guys want the presidency in 2016, you'll have to choose either equality or liberty, and this assumes that Rand isn't playing both sides (which he is, and quite masterfully in my estimation). Personally, I'd prefer to have liberty and get marriage out of the government entirely, but that isn't happening in the near future, in part because the statist left has a lot invested in making sure that people who think like you don't form alliances with others and actually make a successful push for a less authoritarian government.

“My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.” - G.K. Chesterton

Ditto

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

You're right

He's been masterful in his politics. And I actually agree with the logic of his argument, but the way he said it was clumsy and ultimately unnecessary. I don't think him venturing off into "Does it have to be human?" territory wins him much additional favor in a Republican primary, while hurting exceptionally more in a general election.

Either way, I don't think this is going to be a huge factor either way. I've been following him closely for some time now, and this was a little like watching a chess master make a tiny, but false, move.