But in an interview later in the afternoon with Fox News, the Kentucky lawmaker said he was simply trying to argue that the government paid a role in defining marriage, and that marriage will "probably be within certain parameters" that excluded bestiality or polygamy.

"It’s been at the state level and I think if we leave it at the state level there will be room to disagree," Paul said.

"But It will probably be within certain parameters. Like I said, I don’t think it will be with multiple humans, and I think it will be human and human, so 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.”

Paul had previously said that he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that said marital benefits could only be extended to heterosexual couples. The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the heart of that bill, paving the way for federal recognition of same-sex marriages in states where the practice is allowed.

A spokeswoman for Paul told the Lousiville Courier-Journal that Paul was being sarcastic in his original comment.

“Sarcasm sometimes doesn’t translate adequately from radio conversation. Sen. Paul did not suggest that striking down DOMA could lead to unusual marriage arrangements,” she said. “What he was discussing was that having no state involvement in marriage could lead to marriages with no basis in reality.”