See here. As you read the comments from Marco Rubio and John Kasich, ask yourself how much sense their approach would make if applied to a different alternative to traditional marriage. Change the references to a same-sex wedding to something like a polygamous wedding, an incestuous one, a wedding between an adult and a child, or an opposite-sex marriage involving a groom you knew to be romantically involved with a woman other than the bride at the time of the wedding. What would you think of Rubio saying that a polyamorous sexual orientation isn't a choice for the "enormous majority" of polyamorists? They're born that way. Or what would you think of John Kasich and his wife speaking so approvingly of attending a wedding between a fifty-year-old man and his twenty-year-old daughter?
Even Ted Cruz is evasive. At least Rick Santorum took the right position and expressed it clearly and publically. He's unelectable as a presidential candidate, but his answer to the question is pleasing to God, can withstand scrutiny, will withstand the test of time, and is the most loving way to handle the situation.
How often will the media be asking Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates to respond to arguments against same-sex marriage? How often will they be asked if their reasoning about homosexuality and same-sex marriage is applicable to polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc.? If a Democrat like Hillary Clinton is asked such a question, will the question and the answer to it receive the same sort of prominent media attention as the Republican equivalents? No, because the allegedly non-partisan media in this country are dishonest, abusive, and unethical on many other levels.