Actually, what is needed is for small-government conservatives to explain why opposition to “gay marriage” is a small government position. Specifically, government’s legitimate interest in marriage derives from supporting socially beneficial, natural, non-state institutions, to wit, marriage and the family. It is an expansion of government power for the government to arrogate to itself the purported authority to redefine the nature of a non-state institution simply by virtue of the fact that it had for socially beneficial reasons registered marriages and established laws regulating them (age of consent, laws governing divorce settlements and the like).
In the case of abortion, one can be consistently small-government, by supporting the return of the question of which instances of abortion are justifiable homicide (none, saving the life of the mother, saving the mother from severe disability, not obliging the mother to continue enduring the effects of violation by rape or incest, . . .) to the several states as the matter was before Roe v. Wade.
So how do you reconcile the historic fact that from 1774—recent redefinition of “marriage “ by the state of Mass. the
national government was smaller (especially so 1774-1905 as compared to post WWII America) Yet “marriage” was defined in all States reflective of the Christian Moral ethic (at least until we tolerated that damned divisive Wall be erected in 1947 to divide the nation.The size of our national Govt.seems tied to the “marriage” issue only with respect to the fact when we had smaller Govt. we also had greater respect for Christianity and for Christian Morals.