Where will the Santorum Supporters flock to now?

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

[Pyro]

Good question. If this was a month or two ago, I'd say Gingrich, easily. But with the changing political landscape, I think Romney will win the majority of his supporters simply because of his inevitability and delegate numbers.

[tmthforu94]

To Mitt Romney. I'd say he'll get around 50% of Santorum's vote; Gingrich will get 25%, Paul gets a handful, and the rest don't vote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Not Paul and not Obama.

[Miles]

All the Santorum supporters that I'm friends with on Facebook are looking back to Gingrich.

[Wisconsin+17]

Another party. I'll vote for the not-Romney, not-Obama on the ballot. Right now, that's the Constitution party.

I'll be casting my TX ballot for Herman Cain.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

If they are smart and are really social conservatives they would join the Ron Paul Revolution

[Wisconsin+17]

I'd support Ron in the general if he were third party. Also, he's in favor of gay marriage, so he's not a social conservative.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Since when does Paul support Gay Marriage?


Since when the hell did Romney support Gay Marriage for that matter?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I'd support Ron in the general if he were third party. Also, he's in favor of gay marriage, so he's not a social conservative.

Uh I beg to differ. He wants marriage to be dealt with at the state level. But if he were in the Texas legislature he would oppose gay marriage. He's pro-life and pro-commodity based currency.

[Lambsbread]

Romney or Gingrich.

[Lambsbread]

I'd support Ron in the general if he were third party. Also, he's in favor of gay marriage, so he's not a social conservative.

Uh, no. Aside from the fact that I disagree with the implication you're making, Ron Paul does not personally favour gay marriage. He favours a state's right to legislate as they please, in accordance with the 10th amendment.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point is that marriage laws are the province of the federal government, not the states. That's the way the constitution works. Paul is very wrong on this, which is rather surprising for a candidate who is pushing for constitutional governance.

[Lambsbread]

The point is that marriage laws are the province of the federal government, not the states. That's the way the constitution works. Paul is very wrong on this, which is rather surprising for a candidate who is pushing for constitutional governance.

Uhhhhhhhhhh............what?!

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

I'm going to support Mitt Romney now.

I have intense disdain for Romney, but much more disdain for President Obama.

But  I was passionate in my support for Rick, something that i'll most likely never be for Mittens.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Spousal visas are issued by who?

[America First]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Spousal visas are issued by who?

They shouldn't be issued by any government officials, as marriage is a church ceremony.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Answer the question. Who issues spousal visas.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Answer the question. Who issues spousal visas.

The federal government could issue those based on the law in each state.

As to the original question, there won't be a flock, but a scatter.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they can't. If the federal government is issuing spousal visas then the marriage law must be uniform across the United States, and the law is federal jurisdiction not state wrt to the recognition of one man and one women.

Reynolds vs the US. Look it up.

Reynolds also reached the conclusion that the federal government has the obligation to preserve the common law definition of marriage, that it had not the authority to change the definition, anymore then they could do things like suspend habeaus corpus, etc.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point is that marriage laws are the province of the federal government, not the states. That's the way the constitution works. Paul is very wrong on this, which is rather surprising for a candidate who is pushing for constitutional governance.

Marriage law is in the purview of the states as it is not mentioned specifically mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constuition and thus protected as a states right by the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.

[Wisconsin+17]

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Did you miss this clause in section 8?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point is that marriage laws are the province of the federal government, not the states. That's the way the constitution works. Paul is very wrong on this, which is rather surprising for a candidate who is pushing for constitutional governance.

Marriage law is in the purview of the states as it is not mentioned specifically mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constuition and thus protected as a states right by the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.

Marriage is a dual sovereignty issue.  Both the States and the Federal government have the authority to define marriage in so far as it affects their own laws.  That the Federal government generally recognizes State marriages as Federal marriages is a matter of convenience, not a constitutional requirement.