Interesting side note, before we can fix a problem we must first identify that problem, meaning acknowledging our own wrongness and mistakes is a critical part of realizing our own potential.
I agree.
But here's the problem in this scenario, stripped down.
It isn't, in fact, an issue of states' rights because it goes right back to the preamble of the Declaration of Independence which these "Constitutionalists" claim to defend.
"All men are created equal."
It's right there. "All men."
Now, let's pretend to take this literally and go ahead and exclude women and children. (I don't think in practicality we should, but that's a different argument).
What we're basically arguing against/for here is the states' right to define "human male."
This isn't about interstate commerce or issues of public decency. It's not even about giving those uppity women rights when they should be tending the little ones.
Those all have some (from "very little" to "significant") room for discussion.
Dehumanization is the single most effective tool in inflicting harm, pain, death, and indignity on others.
So while you may technically be correct in saying it was a "states' rights" issue -- and I get it, you love to pick apart details and find holes to abuse -- the bottom line is that it is not an issue that should have ever been relegated to state or local decision, even in these "Constitutionalists'" strict definition of such.
