Issues such as marriage and abortion tend to be hot button topics at the Federal level. Such issues are likely to remain contentious as each side is thoroughly convinced that their arguments are right. However, without amendment to the US Constitution, neither of these issues (as well as many others) are within the legitimate scope of the Federal government according to original intent. That is to say, there is no provision of power in Article 1, section 8 that permits the Federal government control over them.
Both issues tend to illicit arguments from one side that appeal to morality based upon religious doctrine. The opposing side tends to appeal to individual rights. Where does one draw the line between religious doctrine and individual Liberty? According to the framers, that line was to be drawn by the people of the individual States. What is little known is that the framers did not intend for the US Bill of Rights to be enforced by the Federal government upon the States, to the contrary, it was to be enforced by the States upon the Federal Government, where each state was to be restrained by their respective people according to their respective charter (State Constitution) and included State Declaration of Rights or State Bill of Rights.
Because the US BOR was not originally enforced by the Federal government against the individual States, the various states could (and did) have established churches. Connecticut had an established church until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833. According to original intent, those who want to enforce morality by law are perfectly within US Constitutional limits to do so at the state/local level. In fact, the early States did this. Each one had anti-sodomy laws at the State level. This of course was influenced by religious doctrine. The framers thought it was best to leave these decisions at the state level, where they can more easily be controlled and changed if the people found them in error. There were some Federal laws that addressed sodomy, but these were confined to Federal jurisdiction, such as military rules and regulations (Article 1, section 8, clause 14).
The framers understood that the people of America had various ideals. Even if they agreed on some issues, they still left them to be determined by the people of the various states. Local governance was an important principle to the colonists. Where local/state governments are left free to appeal to the various ideals of the people, this allows the people an outlet to govern according to their own ideals without forcing them upon the rest of the United States.
State autonomy according to the 10th amendment should appeal to those on both sides of contentious issues. Allowing the people of various States the freedom to choose how to governing according to their respective ideals allows each side to live under a government that satisfies their principles.
Note: this is an examination of original intent. Also see the incorporation doctrine for more information on 20th century ‘interpretation’.
