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

[Zioneer]

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

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.

[Zioneer]

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.

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 I 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.

[Zioneer]

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.

But same-sex marriage wasn't an issue when the 14th amendment was adopted. It could be said to be a right, but one that absolutely no one acknowledged for decades.

[Zioneer]

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.

But why is that the issue that animates you? Why is that the most important issue?

[Zioneer]

That is a stain that they won't be able to remove easily.

Lets point out the stains of the Democrats for once. Ones they will never be rid of. Secession, segregation, secularism, and socialism. This is a Democrat stain not a Republican one.

Oh come on, you're not even trying. Lets go down the list.

Secession: The Democrats of today's America don't agree with secession, and I would wager that they want the Confederate flag to go down more than Republicans at this point. The Dixiecrats are dead.

Segregation: Same as with secession; the modern Democrats support voting rights, a generally more multicultural society, and probably would support integrated busing if it were an issue now. Additionally, their candidates for public office tend to be more diverse (and therefore less segregated) than the Republicans. Also, it was a Democratic president that pushed for and signed the Civil Rights Act. The next Republican president was wary of busing and so forth.

Secularism: Ignoring the fact that secularism isn't that bad in many cases, the Democrats have pastors and religious people in their party. Heck, the state senator that died in the Charleston shooting was a pastor. And all modern Democratic presidents tend to say things like "God bless America" and so forth. The Democratic Party is more open and inviting to secular people and atheists though, so you get half a point for that.

Socialism: If you call wanting a working social safety net socialism, then sure. Though I will remind you that it was a Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, that imprisoned thousands of Socialists before and during WW1. And it was generally Democratic presidents that waged war against Socialist nations during the Cold War (Korea and Vietnam).

As for the idea that the two parties don't have cultural issues anymore, there's still abortion. That'll be a hot-button issue forever. And the death penalty. And the drug war. And as of now, gay marriage is still an issue, if one settled by the courts.