Conservatives are, by definition, people who want to conserve the status quo. They believe society is good as it is (or as it was in sine possibly imagined past) and seek to use the power of the state to prevent changes, and to revert any changes that are pushing society away from what they believe is the status quo. Conservatism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "being conservative in application of government". In the USA, it happens that part of the status quo that many conservatives want to conserve is a weak federal government. In the UK, conservatives are typically monarchist, which is essentially the opposite position.
Either way, many conservatives are collectivists: they believe the needs of society and preservation of tradition outweigh the desires of individuals, and so they tend to be in favor of concepts such as the traditional family excluding gay people, the rule of mothers in child rearing being more important than the freedom of women to pursue careers and so on.
The opposite of conservatives are progressives, people who believe the status quo is not generally good, and who seek to use the power of the state to change the status quo in a direction they believe is progress.
There are also many collectivist progressives, and as such tend to want things like egalitarian schooling even if certain extraordinary kids may be kept behind, or supporting progressive taxation such that those who have more have to give more to the collective.
On a different axis, we have liberals, who are the opposite of collectivists. Liberals can be conservative or progressive, but they ultimately believe that the most important value is individual freedom.
An example of a liberal conservative is someone like Ron Paul. He believes the status quo is generally good and shouldn't be changed to much, except where he thinks government has over reached. However, he also believes government shouldn't involve itself in people lives, even to preserve societal values, so he tends to support the legalization of Marijuana and perhaps even gay marriage (though given electoral realities, in not sure of his public position on the second). Contrast this to a more collectivist conservative like justice Clarence Thomas, who believes the state should ban gay marriage and even sodomy and contraception.
The fundamental core of conservatism is exemplified in Chesterton's Fence, the meaning of which comes down to "make changes with extreme caution", not "don't make changes at all". The inverse of conservatism is the desire for revolutionary change, which is not the same as progressivism (though it's certainly a popular idea with some). Anti-industrialism (e.g. the Ludites) was conservative. Environmentalism can be conservative. Politics has muddied the true meanings of "progressive" and "conservative".
I've heard the fundamental position of conservatism slightly differently: "if something doesn't have to change, then it must not change". As such, the opposite may well be "let's change this and see if it helps".
But behind this fundamental position, there still lies the position that the current state of affairs is fundamentally ok, or very close to it (or if not the current one, then some previous one that you aspire to return to). You can't truthfully be a conservative while believing everything is rotten and always has been - you would have no reasonable reason to oppose change, even change for change's sake.
You don't need to believe that the current state of affairs is "fundamentally ok, or very close to it", quite to the contrary. What you need to believe is that the current state of affairs could be made much worse if one is not careful.
I think most people agree that through history we've made a slow climb up a mountain. And it's always easier to fall down, than it is to continue climbing. One could look down into the abyss and say "we must be careful not to trip", or one could look up at the top of the mountain and say "we must get there at any cost". In this metaphor I'd say the revolutionary would be looking at another peak in the mountain range and say "we must descend into the abyss if we want to make it there".
(1) This is a good overview, but conservatives don't believe in the status quo for the status quo's sake. They believe that our traditions are highly optimized, essential components to living a fulfilling life. We don't even know why many of the rules even exist, the exact problem they solve has long been forgotten to history; so we should be careful when changing these rules.
There is an element of caring for your long-term health as well as the larger society, and raising the next generation of humans, which most everyone agrees with in some form (even libertarians argue that absolute individual liberty is what produces the best outcome for society). This not necessarily make you a collectivist, in the way that progressives push for labor unions, economic planning, and intersectionality.
What you're missing is a description of when conservatives support use of force to promote social values. Modern American conservatives think that rights come with responsibilities, that neither unfettered libertinism nor enforcement of responsibility with police power is legitimate.
(2) Clarence Thomas has never spoken from the bench about what laws the state ought to pass, he is careful to emphasize he is not a lawmaker and that is not his job. When he dissents in Obergefell and other cases that rely on "substantive" due process, it's because i legal rationale invented to uphold slavery in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Clarence Thomas believes these things should be prohibited. He has stated some of these things before, especially about gay marriage - he doesn't believe it should be permitted in the United States, regardless of how that permission is achieved. He doesn't necessarily believe that the Supreme Court should or can ban it, but he certainly believes it should be banned, in an ideal world.
He doesn't believe that the Supreme Court has power to prohibit them, so he's trying to do the next best thing: make sure that the Supreme Court doesn't prevent the federal or state governments from prohibiting them.
Also note that Roe v Wade has nothing whatsoever to do with the federal government. It has everything to do with individual rights, which don't come from the government, they are natural rights. The government can only recognize or fail to recognize them.
His predecessors recognized that these wildly popular natural rights exist and are compatible with the Constitution, so they made sure all states are compelled to recognize them.
The current highly partizan court has decided to ignore these natural rights in favor of their political agenda. That they couch this in the language of overreach is just an obvious rhetorical ploy.
If the federal government makes a law prohibiting abortion in any state, this same Supreme Court will argue that is obviously in the power of the federal government to regulate. If the federal government possess a law guaranteeing abortion, they will find that it is unconstitutional, tidying done other legal reasoning.
You may choose to fall for the rhetoric of demagogues like Thomas, but most people who think critically quickly see past it.
Either way, many conservatives are collectivists: they believe the needs of society and preservation of tradition outweigh the desires of individuals, and so they tend to be in favor of concepts such as the traditional family excluding gay people, the rule of mothers in child rearing being more important than the freedom of women to pursue careers and so on.
The opposite of conservatives are progressives, people who believe the status quo is not generally good, and who seek to use the power of the state to change the status quo in a direction they believe is progress.
There are also many collectivist progressives, and as such tend to want things like egalitarian schooling even if certain extraordinary kids may be kept behind, or supporting progressive taxation such that those who have more have to give more to the collective.
On a different axis, we have liberals, who are the opposite of collectivists. Liberals can be conservative or progressive, but they ultimately believe that the most important value is individual freedom.
An example of a liberal conservative is someone like Ron Paul. He believes the status quo is generally good and shouldn't be changed to much, except where he thinks government has over reached. However, he also believes government shouldn't involve itself in people lives, even to preserve societal values, so he tends to support the legalization of Marijuana and perhaps even gay marriage (though given electoral realities, in not sure of his public position on the second). Contrast this to a more collectivist conservative like justice Clarence Thomas, who believes the state should ban gay marriage and even sodomy and contraception.