Yesterday I noted that Rand Paul had adopted the slippery-slope-to-bestiality argument against same-sex marriage, and wondered if he was trying to steal Rick Santorum’s hard-earned thunder.
Turns out I didn’t realize Paul was just joshing (per WaPo’s Aaron Blake):
“Sarcasm sometimes doesn’t translate adequately from radio conversation,” spokeswoman 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.”
Yeah, I guess I might have failed to understand that Glenn Beck’s audience is populated by urbane sophisticates who appreciate nothing more than some witty repartee about same-sex marriage. It makes me wonder, though, if Paul does run for president and the vast array of strange things he’s said over the years begins to pour out of the oppo-research files, are we going to find out he’s been carrying on an under-appreciated stand-up career all along?
Did he say the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an unacceptable violation of the private property rights of bigots? C’mon, where’s your sense of humor!