And the point of all of this is.....what?

I can agree that the colonists were the social liberals of their time. However, when one compares the colonists' societal and religious beliefs to the platform espoused by the social liberals of today, there is considerable difference. Much of today's liberalism and behavior was considered 200+ years ago by those liberal colonists as pagan, hedonistic and blasphemous. That may not be a popular feeling, but it is accurate.

The USA is a unique entity. It's actually 50 separate nation states (and a couple trust territories) which collectively established a legal entity (the federal government) which would handle relations with outside nations, provide for a common defense, and several other items best handled by virtue of economy and logic by a central party. However, the originators of this collective did not want all state authority absorbed by this central party, as each of the states wanted to maintain local control over most societal matters. That's why the 10th Amendment to the Constitution is so important, as is does limit the federal government from becoming all-powerful regarding local society.

The freedom of travel and resettlement by the populace throughout the 50 states blurs the fact that states are indeed "nations" which can and do exercise dominion and control over many of life's matters. States - not the fed - control laws regarding everything from who can marry and when, what constitutes education, temperance, drivers licenses, and so many other things.

Has this state's rights situation resulted in different laws and practices among the states for doing many things? Sure it has.

So, if the voters of State Alpha wants to redefine societal rules per its 10th Amendment authority, that's their choice. If any of the citizenry of State Alpha relocate to State Bravo which operates under different societal rules, then those folk are bound by the rules in effect in State Bravo, whether they like it or not., and it does not matter if what they are doing was legal in State Alpha.

So, if a resident of MA does not like the laws of FL or anywhere else regarding any issue within State's Rights per the 10th Amendment, there is no one forcing any MA resident to relocate to FL. Or vice versa. I think the gun laws and tax laws of MA and MD are lunacy, but when I'm there I abide by them. And I know the Federal government has no authority (thank God!) to infringe on those gun laws and tax laws, either in MA, MD or FL.

So, while we have federal laws that do apply to the USA population on some things, we will never have federal laws that apply to the USA population on everything. And we can still live in relative harmony because we all, as voters, can tailor the local environment to almost anything we want it to be within the context of the US Constitution as tempered by the 10th Amendment.

What's so bad about that?