Henry Vilas wrote:
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.
I thought Rand Paul
Actually, if you read the interview what he said was:
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?"
He makes an excellent point. Just why is polygamy illegal? What will be the legal basis for it now? Polygamy has a much broader, deeper and longer historical and cultural precedent than the idea that a marriage must consist of only 2 people.
As I understand Paul's position, from other statements elsewhere, he is against the idea of government marriage. Govt should provide civil union contracts and leave marriage to churches and other spiritual organizations.
I will be interested to hear what he has to say about the death of democracy in California. I think that regardless of how one feels about same sex marriage, the killing of the democratic referendum process is far more serious.
I have some issues with direct democracy (A/K/A "mob rule") like California has with referendums. I have an even bigger issue with the federal govt telling a state that they do not have to abide by their own constitution. If there is going to be democracy, it has to mean something.