I seek neither protection nor exploitation, it is merely opinion:
State rights can be defined by :
"The political position advocating strict interpretation of the Constitution with regard to the limitation of federal powers and the extension of the autonomy of the individual state to the greatest possible degree."
I personally do not think it to be a strict belief to think that 'The States' should maintain their individual autonomy; I think it is very reasonable to say that it was at least a part of the founding ideas of democracy.
Whether the discussion be same sex marriage, gun control, the civil war, or religious freedoms, the core laws should not easily side step the constitution and one of the core principles of the democratic process.
I often hear the argument that gun control was enacted in Australia successfully. To say this is to ignore that Australia enacted a national guide line that preserved the states rights to individual autonomy. So to use Australia as an example, I believe, only serves as an example that further legitimatizes the principle of state rights.
"States' rights, as our forefathers conceived it, was a protection of the right of the individual citizen. Those who preach most frequently about states' rights today are not seeking the protection of the individual citizen, but his exploitation. . . . The time is long past - if indeed it ever existed - when we should permit the noble concept of States' rights to be betrayed and corrupted into a slogan to hide the bald denial of American rights, of civil rights, and of human rights." - Robert Kennedy