Prior to the ruling, only a handful of Congressional Republicans were in favor

[CountryClassSF]

And any who do now should be prepared to be primaried.

[CountryClassSF]

So Republicans who bow to the inevitable should be primaried, even if they feel they can express their own thoughts on the matter more honestly now?

Okay. Good talk.

There is no inevitability. It takes one new conservative justice replacing one of the 5 who voted in favor to ask for reconsideration of the case.  If that path to reversal is not on the agenda of the GOP candidate, I'm not interested in supporting them.
The preferred path to reversal is proposal of an amendment and a firm commitment to appoint strict constructionists.

[CountryClassSF]

Do you really think that one new judge would be able to reverse a decision that happened just a few years before his/her appointment (assuming that it'll take a couple of years for a judicial retirement)? Do you really think that the lower courts would bump the issue up to the Supreme Court again, considering they now have a ruling? Do you really think that the Supreme Court will risk the national outcry that would happen due to some upstart justice overturning such an emotional issue?

I'm being as polite as a can, since I'm baffled by your reasoning. I don't understand it.

And such a constitutional amendment would fail miserably, considering how many states you need and how many are becoming positive towards same-sex marriage nowadays.

Oh, I didn't think you were being impolite. I don't know what the courts would do, I don't know how much the case would be entitled to respect under the stari decisis concept, but I will say that it is possible.   

I don't know if I, morally, would feel particularly happy about people losing rights that were once achieved, but I don't think the court has the power to GIVE rights.  If the 14th amendment, which was designed to free blacks from slavery, allowed for same-sex marriages, they would've been performed since it's adoption. 

The moral of the story is I want strict constructionists on the bench and just see what happens then.  I don't believe Rubio, Jeb et al are actually sincerely opposed to SSM with the positions that they've taken.

[CountryClassSF]

The litmus test will be proposing the constitutional amendment to Congress, and more importantly, appointing strict constructionists to the bench. 

If the candidate isn't going to do these things, I simply have no interest in them being President.

[CountryClassSF]

Without cultural issues, we don't really have a two party system anymore. We have the Democrats who are for high taxes, and the Democrats who are for lower taxes. That's pretty much it.