This confuses tolerating private choices with subsidizing them.
Classical liberalism/libertarianism does not mean government must “encourage” gambling or porn. It means coercive power should be limited, and policy should avoid rewarding one politically preferred way of life over another.
And yes, parts of today’s tax-and-transfer system create marriage penalties. But the principled fix is to remove those penalties and make policy more neutral, not create new marriage bonuses and call that conservatism.
Otherwise you have accepted the same social-engineering premise, just with different goals through “conservatism.”
Another lesson is how much libertarianism managed to disguise itself as conservatism. A smaller state and lower taxes are always desirable, but the claim that government cannot be used to advance substantive moral goods is a long-peddled libertarian fiction. If public policy can incentivize single parenthood and lifelong government dependency, as much of the current system does, then there is no principled reason existing funds cannot be reallocated to strengthen marriage, encourage family formation, and promote healthier social arrangements.
But hey, maybe we should just listen to the libertarians and encourage more gambling and porn use instead. Because muh freedum matters most!