Well, you are wrong. After a misstep (SDOC), Reagan nominated the man who would have been the deciding vote in overturning RvW - Robert Bork, whose candidacy was then destroyed by...pro-abortion GOP senator Arlen Specter.
If you really question Reagan with regards to pro-life issues, read "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation", written by RWR in 1983.
After rescinding the Mexico City policy at the outset of his presidency, W nominated a very solid SC chief justice (Roberts) and, after another misstep, followed up with another one (Alito) in the face of opposition from both the left and the pro-abort wing of the party.
As far as sanctioning gays in any way, I'm absolutely not interested, nor would I support any politician doing so - with the exception of prohibiting adoptions, since it's their most effective way of passing on their dysfunction to the next generation.
Pray for them? Yes. Sanction them? No.
I'd say the Rs win when the candidate stays away from social issues entirely, and only runs on the issues that unite us.
There is some logic to that train of thought, but only if the candidate is generally accepted to not be hostile to the pro-life movement.
McCain and Giuliani do not qualify, and I have serious doubts that Romney can pull it off.
Unfortunatly, the Social Cs here are very loud about the fact that many, many of them consider Social Cs the only acceptable candidates. If a candidate is pro-choice, he's DoA to them, for example.
Add me to that list...
Actually, Bork wanted to throw the question back to the states, not outlaw abortion. His position was that there's just no 'right to privacy' in the constitution that guarantees abortion.
That's my position, too. I like the 'component architecture' the Constitution set out. States can make it illegal if they choose.
And if you're going to veto any pro-choice candidate even tho he's a political conservative, then that's the end of the R party, in my opinion.