Open up a history book. Read the section of "popular sovereignty" movement of the 1850s. It was a failed political strategy that attempted exactly what you are advocating. Resulted in nasty stuff like "bleeding Kansas"
>> Are you familiar with the 10th Amendment? <<
Yes. The 10th amendment states that matters NOT already delegated to the federal government are the jurisdiction of the states, OR the people themselves. The 10th amendment does not apply in this case since the bill of rights and 14th amendment already guarantees ALL Americans the right to life. Hence, Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided. States no more have the "right" to kill unborn children than they have the "right" to ignore the 2nd amendment and ban guns. Life and liberty are NOT matters left up to state governments to be "optional" in America.
Of course Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided but it has nothing to do with the right to life because even that is regulated at the state level. With few exceptions, murder is a state matter, not a federal matter. If New Jersey were to insanely decide through its constitutional process to make murder a misdemeanor, it would be fully within its rights to do so.
Of course that would never happen and if it did you would see quite the exodus from New Jersey.
The BoR says the government can’t deprive a person of his life without due process. It DOESN’T say the government has to affirmatively protect life. That’s a significant difference.
All of which has little to do with homosexual “marriage.” States can clearly do whatever the hell they want to do in that regard. The real danger, though is that the SC - like it did in Roe V. Wade - summons up “emanations” and “pnumbras” to conjure a universal right for faggots to marry each other that states get no say over.
Hank