Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'm saying is that what you describe is the straw man caricature of the right that lefties like to dismantle, not how an actual right-of-center person would describe their political motivations. Take gay marriage. The left likes to lampoon the right for claiming that "homosexuality is against our values" or some such homophobic nonsense. But that's not why republicans are against gay marriage--because you might…
If they are against the government defining marriage, then why do they want to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? For example, the California proposition 8 ballot measure read: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." [1] So please explain how this is not defining marriage and how it is supportive of gay marriage rather than in opposition to it. [1] https://en.m…
It was supported by some prominent republicans because of the word "marriage," and for political reasons[0]. Note that to religious conservative thinkers the word "marriage" has deep religious meaning, and to regulate marriage is to encroach on the separation of church and state. This is why many republicans are okay with "civil unions" but have such strong opinions over the word "marriage."
Personally I voted NO on Prop 8, fwiw.
[0] Political science is the pinnacle of complexity in human society. But a lot of it can be understood as virtue signaling combined with pandering to the lowest common denominator and their short attention spans, combined with the destabilizing effects of primary-issue voters. So while there is a primary distinction between the left- and right- political spectrum which has to do with the role of government, there's also a bunch of tag-along, hot-button issues which politicians pay lip service to in order to get elected by the ignorant majority, but don't really influence legislation to large degree. Things like gay marriage, abortion rights, and climate change fall in these categories, sadly.
Which is to say, you'll find conservative think-tanks putting out policy papers justifying the status quo for marriage rights on the grounds that I mentioned. But then some religious fanatics get something like California's Prop 8 on the ballot and republican politicians feel they have to endorse it if they want to get re-elected, which they do. But in reality they're quite happy with the "civil union" compromise because it solves the fundamental civil rights issue without infringing on the religious definition of marriage.