This is one big contradiction that I just can't seem to wrap my mind around. For the most part, republicans preach less government, less government, less government.
Until, of course, it comes to an issue that they don't agree with. Take gay marriage, for example. All of the sudden, we want to pass laws or even make amendments to the Constitution telling homosexuals that they cannot do something? (I'll save why I believe they should be able to marry for a later post.)
A quote in this article on the Huffington Post says "Even though [Santorum] would not personally vote for a ban on sodomy, he said, he thinks states should legally be able to pass them, because sodomy is not a constitutionally protected right." (He holds a similar position on contraception in this article.) So while he says he would not personally ban sodomy (which I wouldn't hesitate to guess is solely for political purposes), he thinks states can ban it because it "is not a constitutionally protected right". So... the states have the power to ban anything that isn't specifically spelled out word for word in the Constitution? Whether or not this is legally true doesn't really interest me (as far as this particular train of thought goes, anyway); but it sure doesn't sound like "smaller government" to me.
I guess I just find it amusing that the party of less regulation and the party of "you have to act this way because the Bible says so" are one and the same.