It would. As the US system is designed, the federal government is really only supposed to be involved in something that involves more than one state. It's evolved into something larger than that, obviously, which some Americans find unforunate.
The US really is based on the idea that people know what's best for them. If a decision can be implemented at a local level, it should be handled there, and not at the state level, since the locals understand the problem the best. No need for Pittsburghers to have a say on a local Philadelphia issue. Likewise, if PA has a statewide issue, why handle it at a federal level, where some orange farmer from CA has a say?
Then you don't really preach tolerance do you? You just preach a different form of intolerance, making you no better than the bigots you claim to to be better than. Real tolerance is understanding that people are free to think and believe what they choose, and shouldn't be shouted down, discriminated against, or jailed because of that.
There is a big difference between someone who feels [group A] is wrong/inferior/immoral and the person that acts on those feelings and violating rights of the members of [group A]. The first is a person you may disagree with, but it's just not right to discriminate against/jail him. The second is a person that is probably committing a crime, and that's fine too.