You basically did neither, and pretty spectacularly so.

Well lets cover these individually:

Federal Ban on gay marriage: It would probably be irrelevant to point out that this is a seriously nuanced issue that is far more about generational rather than ideological divides, so I'm just going to point out here that trying to paint conservatives as neanderthals on gay rights is a bit mind boggling considering the GOP stance on Gay Marriage was identical to our President's until less than a year ago. Also a lot of conservatives opposed a federal ban on the grounds that it violated state's rights, but, ya know, let's not let facts interfere with a frothing rant.

Federal Ban on abortion: FYI, the consensus in the GOP was to get Roe vs Wade overturned, which didn't illegalize abortion, it made it illegal for a state to ban abortion. As a whole conservatives of that era, which was a more bipartisan term, mostly opposed legislating that either way at the federal level. Its also worth mentioning that since we on the right regard it as killing someone, the notion that it damages states right's is as irrelevant as a federal ban on killing people without reasonable cause.

Federal ban on flag burning: Kinda digging back in time a decent ways, but so you know the first Flag Burning protection act was passed in 1968, when the Dems had the senate 67-33, and the house 247-187, so I'm betting that didn't go through in spite of the left. It was then passed again in 1989, when the Dems still controlled both houses by sizable majorities 55-45 and 251-183, not in the middle of a war, and after liberal and conservative had begun being near synonyms of democrat and republican. It's been tried around half a dozen times since then, but always dies in the senate, yet doesn't filibustered and typically doesn't get tried as an amendment, which would work, as opposed to a bill, which very definitely would not. Why? Both sides use it to appeal to their bases, one appeasing those who view it as disrespect and treason, the other claiming we can't compromise the freedom of even assholes. This is very safe since except for Penn & Teller flag burner's are regarded by the super-majority of the populace as loathsome immature brats or traitorous scum they'd like to see beaten, just not by the cops. It allows for an appeal to the base while letting seats up in vulnerable purple territory vote against their party. That may be a touch despicable but such things are pretty bipartisan, there are several issues that get dusted off like that with the intent of doing nothing but appeasing bases and giving vulnerable congressmen a chance to appear moderate. You're essentially using a brush to paint one side as bad because they are more likely to say "It is Despicable, and..." rather than "It is Despicable, but...", still of all your points, this one is most valid.

Now throughout that I've tried to defend the morality a bit too, but that's redundant because your point was about smaller government and the right took all of those actions after someone else had raised the stakes and made it a federal matter.

The examples you cited even if accurate and needing no context are all actually extensions of trying to preserve states rights from judicial tampering. Gay marriage just now achieved its 10th state(out of 50) legalizing it where the others all have it explicitly banned, and when those efforts were made the only states where it was legal were almost strictly because a court said so, as opposed to a elected legislature or referendum by the people. Pre Roe v Wade the majority of states explicitly banned abortion, that's the reason even many Pro-choice GOP favors overturning that ruling, from their perspective it just makes it so states get to decide again and many would keep it legal in whole or part. As I recall 48 of 50 states had bans on burning flags when SCOTUS ruled on the matter and sparked the next attmept. So from the conservative perspective it about trying to overturn or counteract federal court intervention in the will of state's elected legislature's or direct referendums. Replying with federal legislation is fighting fire with fire, not ideal but hardly the way you're portraying it.