GOP Sen. Rand Paul: Supreme Court DOMA decision could lead to bestiality

God bless the Republican party. They just can’t keep quiet when they’re down. I had asked earlier today just how quickly someone in the GOP was going to suggest something stupid following the Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) , and didn’t Republican Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) step up to the plate.

The DNC had put out a new video today that got a bit overshadowed by the all the Supreme Court hoopla.  The video is about the disastrous 100 days since the Republican party “rebooted” itself as part of its “autopsy” about why the GOP lost so badly in the last election. And today, Republican Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) just made a nice addition to the 100 day debacle that is the GOP rebranding effort.

You see, Rand Paul is very concerned about today’s Supreme Court decision striking down DOMA because this might mean man-on-dog marriages are next.


Oh yes.  The bright young libertarian Tea Party star of the Republican party went on Glenn Beck’s radio show and just compared Mary Cheney’s relationship to sodomizing your pet.

“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.”

And here’s the audio:

You might recall the other famed Republican Senator who was concerned about man-dog sex was the infamous Rick Santorum, who now has a word in the dictionary named after him as a result of his bigotry.

Paul of course made a quick pivot and now is claiming that the GOP has to “agree to disagree” with gays over marriage.  This, after he invoked bestiality.

I don’t know how marriage works in Kentucky, Rand, but for the rest of us, yeah, it has to be humans.

Grand Old Party?  Try “Grandpa’s Old Party.”

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

151 Responses to “GOP Sen. Rand Paul: Supreme Court DOMA decision could lead to bestiality”

  1. jokr8790 says:

    Hey what can you say. People like Paul and Sanctimonious Rectum seem to focus and obsess constantly on the image of having sex with barnyard animals. They’ve obviously given animal husbandry a whole new meaning.

  2. jokr8790 says:

    “Grandpa’s Old Party?” How about Grotesque Old Pedophiles?

  3. JC says:

    What is up with the Republicans and man on animal sex? What has happened to the party of Lincoln?
    Just make sure to keep your pets away from these wackos.

  4. mike31c says:

    Rand Paul is obviously just waiting to have sex with his pet goat.

  5. Prophet says:

    No polygamy is not the same. There is a compelling state interest in restricting a civil marriage to one spouse (which treats every citizen equally, gay or straight you can only have one) – Estate laws and other next of kin issues would be in turmoil if states recognized polygamy.

  6. novadust says:

    it’s just u. rest of us know what he meant. sorry, but it’s obvious. #randorum

  7. novadust says:

    hard to believe this new santorum is an MD. he doesn’t even know how to pronounce ‘mores’.

  8. Joehio says:

    Not really. Why would that follow? Because traditional orthodox Christianity (at least in recent centuries) disapproves of both? I think the point may be that these things should be decided by society on their separate merits, regardless of what (a) particular religion(s) believe. Animals and children/minors are not allowed to enter into legally binding contracts for different but valid reasons in both cases. Society might (or might not) have valid reasons for limiting a marriage contract to two individuals at a time, but it should be evaluated on its own merits, not on adherence to or reaction against any particular religion(s).

  9. claate says:

    How about MORE people entering stable marriages and adopting children? That would solve two problems now wouldn’t it. I’d rather be the adoptive child of a loving gay married couple than born into some white trash family to a teenage mom and a part-time Dad who’s drunk half the time.

  10. Lee H says:

    So Rand thinks people who are into that sort of thing would WAIT until it becomes legal before they go ahead with beastiality?

  11. Patricia Darlene McClendon says:

    I think the bigger question is why is bestiality still legal in Kentucky? I think that he will leave in on the books so he continue to insult same-sex marriages.

  12. Robert says:

    Where we will all be enjoying sex with animals and taking drugs. Right Judy?

  13. Robert says:

    And all this time, I thought he was a librarian. My bahhhd.

  14. Matt H says:


  15. Uptohere says:

    Hey Rand, I don’t what you like to do to farm animals in Kentucky….or how “Baaaa, Baaaa, Baaad, you were as a kid, but you and a few of your GOP freaks are the ONLY people I know who are obsessing about having sex with Petunia Pig or Mary’s Little Lamb.

  16. ArthurH says:

    Actually Rand Paul is a conspiracy monger. Since he took office he has pushed one conspiracy claim after another, most of which have been fake. The guy is so paranoid that if he runs for President in 2016, a good Truth in Advertising Law would require he use Cheap Trick’s “Dream Police” as his theme music.

  17. Houndentenor says:

    In most states there is no law banning bestiality. that includes Kentucky.

  18. Houndentenor says:

    I’ll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.

  19. benb says:

    Oh, oh, oh! Now Rand Paul claims he was being sarcastic:

    We *all* know how well sarcasm works in Politics and Online (<sarc>).

  20. Mocas Dad says:

    So bestiality fans have been waiting for a signal from SCOTUS? I’m not sure all the cletuses and billy ray’s just a’ yearning for their favorite sheep have been tuned in to CNN for the latest from Jeffrey Toobin on this issue.

  21. artrod says:

    Please, quit calling Rand Paul a libertarian. It only shows your ignorance of what libertarianism really is, you know support of individual liberty…

  22. Judy says:

    I can see by the comments that none of you will be lonely when your roasting in hell.

  23. pappyvet says:

    But the phrase was NOT “what if,” Was it?

  24. BillFromDover says:

    “Does it have to be human?”

    Some might ask the same about a certain senator sent to DC from Kentucky?

  25. Richard_thunderbay says:

    Clearly, Rand considers gays to be less than human because, by invoking this old, horrible argument, he is equating them with animals.

    He’s a real chip off of daddy’s block.

  26. houstonray says:

    Rand Paul is an animal….several come to mind. Jackass. Pig. But then again, that’s probably being too kind to those animals.

  27. fentwin says:

    You know, when the day comes that a dog, or any other member of the animal Kingdom (don’t worry, there’ll be time for the other kingdoms to have their say) can understand and sign a contract, then I say all the more power to the little beasties.

    Besides, when is Mr. Paul going to finally make that marmot of a hairpiece an honest marmot?

  28. Jeanne Katz says:

    Sick bastard!

  29. Sweetie says:

    It’s a referendum on America that this guy is the only one who stood up to filibuster domestic drone attacks.

    “The Jonas Brothers are here. Sasha and Malia are big fans. But, boys… don’t get any ideas. I have two words for you: predator drones.”

    Yeah, who is the one with the warped brain? Is it the audience that warmly clapped and laughed at that “joke”? Is it the people who continue to act as if such jokes, and real actions, are somehow superior to ignorant comments about sexuality?

    The sad truth is that for all the sophistication on sexual fronts, there is a vast lack of wisdom on others.

    But, maybe people can explain to me how “blood shed from Selma to Stonewall” really is righteous and inspiring when teens’ blood is on our hands.

  30. Pete Watson says:

    So just look up north to see the horrors visited upon our nation because of our sins. Our society has collapsed and bestiality runs amok. Oh, wait…..

  31. Jayjc08 says:

    We can pander on who he is trying to please or upset- neither you or I can claim someone own motives and will draw different conclusions from his statement- but what isn’t conjecture is that Rand Paul supported the Supreme Courts measure.

    One thing that we can agree on is your statement on vanity. It appears that I do have unearned intellectual vanity in that I have not earned the abuse of being called vain- I make no claim to be smarter, or represent any group, or do not mean to act on pride in what I said. Neither am I necessarily a fan of Rand Paul. But look at the comments below, the content of this article and answer for yourself if it is representative of a group that clamors for “equality”. I think Rand Pauls support for this decision is the best show of humanity here, even with his comment taken out of context.

  32. AynBland says:

    No wonder you’re a fan of RP. You’re very alike when it comes to unearned intellectual vanity. Truth is, RP is trying to have it both ways. He wants the “base” to hear the degrading association he has made, but also wants to be able to say “I didn’t say that!” He could pick another analogy, you know. Since he’s all smart and stuff.

  33. Stev84 says:

    You dirty robosexual

  34. ArthurH says:

    Then bring on the Orgasmatrons from the Woody Allen movie “Sleeper.”

  35. Stratplayer says:

    Rand Paul is a bigoted dolt, a calculating cynic who regards his constituency as bigoted dolts, or a blend of both. I suspect the latter.

  36. Christopher Zimny says:

    If one allows for homosexual marriage, mustn’t you allow for polygamy too? Yes, of course. I don’t really don’t understand what the big deal is.

  37. chris10858 says:

    What in common do same sex marriage rights have with single parent families? If we want to minimize single parent families, then make a law stating that divorce is outlawed if a family has kids. For that matter, as Michelle Bachmann stated yesterday that marriage is sanctioned by God. So then, how can we as humans allow something sanctioned by God to be torn apart — let’s just outlaw all divorce! lol

  38. Stev84 says:

    His opinions fit just right with the sick mess that is American libertarianism: Abolish the federal government and let the states and the rich do whatever they want.

  39. Stev84 says:

    Because everything is peachy as long as it’s a state that’s oppressing you and not the federal government.

  40. GDHJ says:

    Well, considering he’s already married to that muskrat on his head…

  41. Jayjc08 says:

    John Aravosis would cover this subject for nothing but show and hatred. If his writings were to be more honest, then may he dive into more details about Rand Paul.

    But since he leaves the subject up in the air by quoting a hypothetical situation under false pretenses, that is, that Rand Paul was not suggesting that the decision would lead to bestiality, consider the fact that Rand Paul has been in opposition of DOMA since the situation came to our attention. He arrived at that decision by saying that this is not a political but a social issue- if some are to base arguments based on religion and family values, let the independent churches or the people decide and place that power back in the peoples hands.
    Furthermore Rand Paul is for “traditional marriage”, but proof to the dissatisfaction of certain journalists, shown by the lack of coverage on one and not the other, Rand understands that people have differing opinions and has no intention of forcing it on others through legislation!
    To examine the quote by Rand Paul more entirely, a reasonable person might come to the conclusion that he is asking about the boundaries and precedents of social legislation. He is asking what any thinking person may ask when considering the issue, should legislation follow given social boundaries or are the people to decide? It is meant to be an open ended question- and by John Aravosis trying to come to a conclusion that strikes some as unfounded, I put little trust in his show.

  42. PrahaPartizan says:

    God forbid aliens ever arrive on our planet, because the baggers would go crazy, while reaching for the smellin’ salts. Everything revolves around that word “consent.” Actually, in our understanding, that would be mutual consent, uncoerced. Nonetheless, if one of the parties cannot give consent, then no relationship can be formed. Baggers think in terms of dominance, with one party having control over the other, which I am sure is what prompts their fascination with beastiality. Reading about pre-Civil War mores among the slave-holding class also opens up new vistas for understaning these clowns too.

  43. PrahaPartizan says:

    No, it doesn’t have to be human, but it does have to be mutually concensual. Isn’t that the real problem that those in the GOP have with understanding sex at all. In their “world,” it’s all about dominance and power. They can’t understand that both parties are supposed to agree to the relationship as equals. That should tell everybody everything they need to know about allowing these power-seeking perverts anywhere close to the levers of political power.

  44. Randy Paul has never seen a Hindu temple frieze evidently. Mankind did not need the SCOTUS to be interested in beastiality.

  45. olandp says:

    That explains his toupee.

  46. olandp says:

    His wife already has.

  47. olandp says:

    Why is it that this is where the collective conservative mind goes? They are sick and twisted people.

  48. lynchie says:

    growing up in tennesee he probably had buddies who were farm boys and they love them some calves. many a farm boy has party with a young heifer.

  49. indep_in_la says:

    I didn’t think that Libertarians would have a problem with bestiality.

  50. BeccaM says:

    Indeed. The litigation has only just begun.

    Hilarious side-observation: In Scalia’s ranting dissent, he essentially sketched out the legal rationale that can be used at the state level for overturning all those mini-DOMAs.

  51. pappyvet says:

    “The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we’re punting on it, marriage can be anything.”

    So the mythology spins. Nobody said that marriage can be anything.

    What is really funny is that people like Rand Paul and many of his ilk sound as if and will no doubt do their best to act in an unconstitutional way. Article 4 will be in play.

    Section 1.

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    Section 2.

    The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
    Cant wait to see how a gay married couple from Maine will be treated in Alabama. I believe there has already been some situations here. It’s going to get very interesting.

  52. JayRandal says:

    I could say Rand Paul has lost his mind, but I don’t believe he has ever had a functioning brain.
    GOPers like Paul have fantasies about of sex with animals. Why they talk about it all the time.

  53. Naja pallida says:

    Because Rand Paul is a libertarian in the same way Barack Obama is a socialist. That is to say, only in the addled minds of right-wing ditto-heads, who don’t understand that words actually have meanings, and that pulling random ones out of your ass to describe things is not actually a substitute for educating yourself.

  54. lilyannerose says:

    Skirting all of the what bull comments, I have a question to pose. Why would it be any of Rand’s libertarian business if someone decided to marry an animal? Isn’t the center of libertarian clown thought that it’s all about personal freedom? Oh gee, guess what? Rand just made a big time ass, oh excuse me, I meant an hypocrite of himself!

  55. Dameocrat says:

    The Pauls actually come from the domionist Constitution party, not the Libertarian Party. Most of their organizers or homeschoolers and quiverfulls, who believe birth control should be outlawed. Dominionist advocate anarcho-capitalist economics, so they often tell people they are libertarian. They would privatize everything, There would be no public school system, and all the roads would be tolls. They would otherwise enact the old Testament at the state level including stonings for gays, adulteresses, and rebellious children.

  56. Miss Boo says:

    I bet Mrs Paul hopes this all leads to bestiality cuz she is tired of having to wear the goat suit at night

  57. Hue-Man says:

    I’m more worried about these teavangelicals demanding that corporations be allowed to marry and file joint tax returns! Read the bigot Scalia’s dissenting opinion if you want a lesson in hypocrisy. “Don’t overrride the legislature by shooting down DOMA” (but don’t look at our decision on Voting Rights). “Courts shouldn’t fabricate new decisions from nothing (but don’t read Citizens United). “Don’t legislate morality” (unless it’s MY morality). Disgusting.

  58. Jessie Canty says:

    If you did, then you, like Mr. Paul, are a complete goof.

    Neither animals nor robots can consent. They cannot inherit money, collect social security, get citizenship rights, accept health insurance, or be claimed on your income taxes.

    No, gay marriage will not lead to marrying your pets. Rand Paul is just a somatime libertarian who only cares about liberty insofar as it’s something that might affect him. Since he doesn’t plan on marrying a dude, he sees no reason to support it.

  59. karmanot says:

    PETA certainly does

  60. Butch1 says:


  61. GayMarriageNow says:

    The headline is misleading… Rand Paul never mentioned “bestiality”… He questioned whether our partners had to be human… My mind did not immediately go to farm animals… I thought about cyber-sex and robotics… but maybe that’s just me.

  62. Pjs8200 says:

    It’s really the only thing they got once you remove religion from the argument. You’ll notice also today that any mention of Leviticus has been surprisingly absent. But, when the supreme court also ruled that the ban on interracial marriage was also unconstitutional, the very same arguments and predictions were used. I’m still having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that we’re actually in the year 2013 and the electorate is getting more ignorant as the years pass.

  63. HolyMoly says:

    Backwoods inbreeding can lead to utter stupidi…uh…utter stup…uh…utter stupidit…uh…Rand Paul!

    Signed, Porky P.

  64. karmanot says:

    Rand Paul: sad, anemic, humorless little man out.

  65. karmanot says:

    The very same

  66. Paul Harris says:

    Am I the only one who notices that bestiality is always the go-to argument for Republicans — like it’s always on their minds?

  67. karmanot says:

    Oh please, he also thinks ‘negras’ shouldn’t be free to dine at private restaurants.

  68. Monoceros Forth says:

    Beasts, or bears? ;)

  69. karmanot says:

    Because Sesame Street is banned in Bible home school?

  70. Thom Allen says:

    You need to submit that to Urban Dictionary and Dan Savage.

  71. Monoceros Forth says:

    An ambitious right-wing Republican politician, son of a well-known libertarian and named after one of the most famous atheists of all time, telling the world that he’s an evangelical Christian? Seems like “opportunist” would be a better label. (But, yeah, yeah, I know, one night he accepted Jesus into his heart or something.)

  72. karmanot says:

    Randy Beastie sounds cool to me.

  73. karmanot says:

    Sheep is a step up, he’s more the chicken F’er in my opinion.

  74. karmanot says:

    Although it has been many years ago I clearly recall dating and having ‘intimate relations’ with many a beast and I highly recommend it.

  75. Shorter Rand Paul” “You go, squirrelfriend!”

  76. lynchie says:

    only if you are Amish

  77. lynchie says:


  78. JPeron says:

    He is NOT a self-described libertarian—he has repudiated that label, with good cause. And, he is an evangelical Christian. In a Time magazine article he told the reporter: “They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian.”,8599,1972721,00.html#ixzz1yjNZ8V8Q

  79. DrDignity says:

    Mr. Rand, I will be happy to officiate when you marry your jack ass!~

  80. lynchie says:

    Most don’t go to college because the believe education will make you a liberal

  81. lynchie says:

    I think Rand (aka Randie) has spent too much time in the sheep pen as a boy. Mind, he always got the ugly one.

  82. davidinchelseama says:

    Rand: To have coitus with a farm animal.
    Randing: The act of having coitus with a farm animal.

  83. GoBlue says:

    This is the self-described libertarian? He sounds like an evangelical Christian. Gee, could that have anything to do with the Iowa caucuses?

  84. KFischer says:

    Rand Paul reminds me of another junior senator who roused middle conservative America into a huge panic because he was convinced the reds were taking over our country and infecting it with Communism. Yes, I’m talking about Joseph McCarthy.

    But then a really cool news guy named Edward R. Murrow exposed him for the schmuck he was on “See It Now”. McCarthy was thrown out of Capital Hill and ended up dying young of complications due to alcoholism.

  85. ckg1 says:

    Mr. Dan Savage, your wit is needed again to permanently tag the junior senator from Kentucky with an unsavory-sounding name the same way you used Rick Santorum’s name for something else that is unsavory….

  86. Rrhain says:

    One has to wonder: Why is bestiality the very first thing Rand Paul thinks of when he contemplates sex?

    Is he trying to tell us something?

  87. Kati Fischer says:

    “Muskrat Looooovveee…”””

  88. Kati Fischer says:

    Well, let’s just use the Bible against their argument — that they fear the SC’S ruling today will lead to polygamy —

    Wasn’t that in the Bible? The CHRISTIAN Bible? Why do opponents of gay marriage continually use their own evidence against themselves?

    And the whole beast thing? To quoth Frank Zappa, that’s slippery slope ‘FROGWASH’. Good Lord — didn’t any of these people take a public speaking or argumentative writing course in college?

    or did they get thrown out of college before they had the chance?

  89. Lou Alexander says:

    I am proud to live in a country where even double dumb asses like this guy can speak freely!

  90. Mark Edward Talboom says:

    Dumb beasts, pets and farm animals are NOT adult human beings.
    Neither is your toaster or other household appliances.
    Ditto with children.
    These are all things that the idiots on the right have claimed gays and lesbians will lust after and want to have a permanent union with (or until the warranty runs out in the case of the toaster).

    These claims are so preposterous on their face, they smack of scare tactics and can only appeal to the dumbasses who are also anti-gay and homophobic.

    Theses commentsIt shows how desperate Rand Paul and his ilk are to claim this. People who have made similar claims include Rush Gasbaugh, Glenn Beck and a multitude of “Christian” preachers who all have the ear of God and claim to know what He wants (and please send in your $$$ to continue to fight gay marriage, though that ship has sailed–permanently). TSK!

  91. Mark Edward Talboom says:

    And speaking of beasts, have you seen Rand Paul’s wife. OY!

  92. Monoceros Forth says:

    Hm. I’d never thought of it that way. It’s an astute point. Maybe that’s one reason the notion of same-sex marriage discombobulates the religious right: if your notion of marriage is fundamentally unequal and based on a strict division of roles–the childbearer and mother taking orders from the father and breadwinner–then any other relationship that does not conform to that facile scheme must seem bizarre and unnatural. It ties in with stupid questions about “who’s the mommy?” in a same-sex couple.

  93. Monoceros Forth says:

    Yeah, you’re probably right. But in the end does it really matter if Rand Paul (or any of them) actually believe what they’re saying, or are merely trying to pander to the fundies? Sincere or not, he’s getting the same results.

  94. Matt Shelby says:

    And here’s the explanation: “I don’t think it will be with multiple humans, and I think it will be human and human,” Paul said on Fox News. “I didn’t mean that to mean anything other than that I think the government will still probably be involved in defining marriage to a certain aspect. I don’t think we’re going on towards polygamy or things beyond that.”
    Read more:

  95. Matt Shelby says:

    Eh, you’re taking one little bit of what he said and extrapolating quite a bit. I’m guessing if you asked him to discuss it further he’d explain that’s not what he meant.

    I think you’ll also find that he praised Anthony Kennedy’s opinion and said it was the right one. So demonize him if you want, but he’s one of the few Republicans who is speaking positively about this decision.

  96. Suzanne Thielmann says:

    Rand Paul is such and idiot. How can bestiality be compared to adult consensual marriage? As soon as my cats (or you dog) can carry on a conversation, give informed consent, and sign their names to the documents, I guess they can marry whomever they choose. In the meantime Rand Paul should have a nice tall glass of shut-the-hell-up.

  97. BeccaM says:

    And 4H Club county fairs are considered “speed dating.”

  98. Reasor says:

    Christian Fundamentalists don’t recognize that marriage is a legal contract between two equals. That’s why the fact that a dog can’t sign a legally binding contract doesn’t figure into their math.

  99. BeccaM says:

    Where the rest of us see mere farm animals and house pets, Senator Rand Paul sees nigh irresistible sexual temptation and animal lust*.

    I think that says everything we need to know.

    (* = pun entirely intended)

  100. GAftly8524 says:

    мy coυѕιɴ ιѕ мαĸιɴɢ $51/нoυr oɴlιɴe. υɴeмployed ғor α coυple oғ yeαrѕ αɴd prevιoυѕ yeαr ѕнe ɢoт α $1З619cнecĸ wιтн oɴlιɴe joв ғor α coυple oғ dαyѕ. ѕee мore αт…­ ­ViewMore——————————————&#46qr&#46net/kkEj

    Concur. He’s not reliably
    corporatist enough, and his authoritarian impulses stop at women’s
    bodies and LGBTs in general. That’s enough heresy for disqualification
    as a GOPer nominee for prez.

  101. PeteWa says:


  102. BeccaM says:

    Concur. He’s not reliably corporatist enough, and his authoritarian impulses stop at women’s bodies and LGBTs in general. That’s enough heresy for disqualification as a GOPer nominee for prez.

  103. cole3244 says:

    these two take repugnant to a new level, mirror images of fascism on parade.

  104. PeteWa says:

    all six degrees of him!
    six, the devil’s number!

  105. BeccaM says:

    And Kevin Bacon. Ban him, too.


  106. One of the CA 36,000 says:

    And YOU win the Internetz today…!!!

    Congratulations. Chantez, you stay.

    Dead Squirrel with Ass Pimple that Looks like Rand Paul, sashay away!

    I love the smell of Schadenfreude in the morning, don’t you?

  107. arcadesproject says:

    Let us know when, OK?

  108. tamarz says:

    except for all those Nazi articles in Ron Paul’s newsletters.

  109. Naja pallida says:

    Ideologues don’t need any interconnection between the nonsense they spew and reality. As long as Fox Noise is there to help him repeat it, he’s set.

  110. nicho says:

    Yes, going to the zoo there is referred to as “a mixer.”

  111. Wait a sec... says:

    What’s that thing humping his scalp?

  112. Naja pallida says:

    He will undoubtedly be a candidate, and he’ll probably win a few straw polls and maybe even some primaries, but they won’t let him be the nominee any more than they would let his father.

  113. nicho says:

    How the flaming f–k do you get from “any two adult citizens may marry” to “I want to marry my dog”? How do you do that?

    You join the GOP.

  114. Liberal Art says:

    It’s only natural he’d be obsessed with bestiality, the muskrat that sleeps on his head all day spends its nights whispering dirty muskrat fantasies into Rand’s ear while he sleeps.

  115. Monoceros Forth says:

    How the flaming f–k do you get from “any two adult citizens may marry” to “I want to marry my dog”? How do you do that? And why is a same-sex marriage the more slippery slope? If a man dares to want to marry a female human, might he not progress to wanting to marry a female horse?

    I guess the idea is, though, that all forms of sin are essentially the same, much in the way that in the world of 1984 there is only one real crime, “thoughtcrime”. Or it’s like how doing one drug, even one as innocuous as marijuana, was supposed to be a “gateway” to getting hooked on heroin or cocaine.

  116. FLL says:

    Dear Rand Paul,

    There’s a great example of homoerotic members of the animal kingdom that might suit you: male lions. Kruger National Park in South Africa is waiting for you. Have fun.

  117. caphillprof says:

    I’ sure the NSA knows

  118. Sally says:

    Well, considering the other garbage they have come up with in Texas, he doesn’t really surprise me. Besides, he figures Beck’s audience are his money people, so he will say whatever will keep the crumbled dollars coming in. And to think some think he will be the GOP candidate in 2016…bawabababwawaaa

  119. caphillprof says:

    Wishful thinking, I’m sure.

  120. Sally says:

    I don’t know. If the SC can call corporations people, they may let Rand’s dog vote too.

  121. Tor says:

    Think common law marriage……

  122. Sally says:

    We knew this right away…and the GOP will never hear it (or if they do, they will never admit Issa is a fool and Fox a bunch of idiots.

  123. Sally says:

    Priceless, this GOP. Ignorant, but so special. Wonder if pregnant before marriage, mother of kids who were pregnant and never married, as well as a son who is already divorced, but got his fiancee preggers before they were ever married Sarah will react to this. She sure can’t claim “normal family unit” cred. Oh wait, she’s too busy whining about a Muslim cleric visiting the White House.

  124. Tor says:

    Rand’s fetishistic fantasy life is very rich.

  125. Naja pallida says:

    On an unrelated note, turns out the IRS “scandal” was entirely manufactured by Darrell Issa; surprise, surprise, surprise.

  126. Steven says:

    Let’s keep in mind that this is not just a ruling about gay marriage for the opponents. It’s about their entire world view, their sense of entitlement that they – not you or I and certainly not the courts – determine what is or is not acceptable and legal and legitimate. And this ruling just kicked sand all in their faces.

    Today was a very positive development for us, just as the last election was. But we can’t lose sight that the Republican Party, while facing a demographic demise in the near future, still has mountains of money, ill will, and power (especially at the state level) to make our lives miserable for quite some time. But let’s worry about that tomorrow. We may end up taking one step back, but this was definitely a two-steps forward day.

  127. cole3244 says:

    crazier than daddy, definitely.

  128. Naja pallida says:

    When asked, “How long have you had that?” the dead squirrel responded, “A long time. It started as a pimple on my ass.”

  129. SkippyFlipjack says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if we had some sort of governmental body whose entire job it was to adjudicate disagreements between people so, like, if I told a friend who needed some groceries “here, take my car” he couldn’t just take it forever and never give it back? I mean, those slippery slopes are so scary!

  130. PeteWa says:

    and vice versa!
    ban Footloose!

  131. Houndentenor says:

    Yes, your spouse has to be human. How do we get a non-human to give informed consent?

    Rand Paul is not this stupid. He’s pandering to his Teavangelical base.

  132. citizen_spot says:

    Well, he certainly seems attached to that dead squirrel on his head.

  133. kingstonbears says:

    Any happen to have a picture of his kin folk? I know, real bad.

  134. Naja pallida says:

    The only conclusion I can come to from Rand Paul’s comments, and this isn’t the first time he’s brought it up, is that he desperately wants his love of farm animals to be legitimized.

  135. BeccaM says:

    I keep thinking that Rand Paul’s internet browser history must be a horrific nightmare of perversion and depravity.

  136. smkngman3 says:

    Rand forgets there are NO laws against beastiality in Kentucky.

  137. goulo says:

    I’m waiting for one of the anti-marriage-rights people to complain that this latest ruling could even lead to mixed-race marriages and miscegenation…

  138. Dave of the Jungle says:

    Pre-marital sex could lead to dancing.

  139. MoonDragon says:

    The last time I investigated this, neither minor children nor animals not carnival prizes are recognized under law as being capable of signing a contract, so extending marriage to unions including either animals, children, or even plushies is highly unlikely and lack of legal standing to form contracts would precluded them. But what do I know, I’m not a lawyer, nor do I portray one on TV. I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn Express. Ever.

  140. Randy Riddle says:

    Meh. It’s just a shorter way of saying all of Scalia’s argle bargle.

  141. Jim says:

    I think he’s asking cuz he’s looking for a doggie hookup!

  142. rerutled says:

    Wishful thinking on his part.

  143. TheAngryFag says:

    Someone’s projecting….

  144. BeccaM says:

    As with most who claim the Libertarian mantle, Senator Aqua-Buddha is no different — it always stops well short of anything he personally disapproves of.

    Liberty and freedom for me, not for thee.

  145. tamarz says:

    An example of why I have no respect for Paul, even though he occasionally says something good. Like a stopped clock. He’s not a real libertarian because if he were he would say that choosing your marriage partner is the right of the individual, not of the state.

  146. BeccaM says:

    Yeesh… what an ignorant bigot. Or bigots, actually, the lot of them.

    Animals, children, and inanimate objects cannot give informed legal consent. I was going to add “nor those incapable of higher reasoning” — but obviously they give homophobic bigot GOPers the right to marry.

  147. Butch1 says:

    This man has a diseased mind to think up such sick things. Do they let him out alone at night? I would watch him around animals if he can come up with thoughts like this.

  148. A_nonymoose says:

    He’s just mad because he’s been left out.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS