No we don't... 98 U.S. 145, REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, October Term, 1878.
Don't just copy and paste, connect the dots between state's rights and the decision you referense... if you can.
Reynolds is not applicable. Utah was a Territory, Utah did not become a State until 1896. There is quite a bit of difference between a Territory and a State.
The applicable case law couldn't be clearer, for example, as Justice Frankfurter explained in his concurring opinion in Williams v North Carolina:
[i]"The Constitution of the United States, however, [b]reserves authority over marriage and divorce to each of the forty-eight states.[/b] That is our starting-point... We are not authorized nor are we qualified to formulate a national code of domestic relations.There may be some who think our modern social life is such that there is today a need, as there was not when the Constitution was framed, for vesting national authority over marriage and divorce in Congress, just as the national legislatures of Canada and Australia have been vested with such powers. Beginning in 1884, numerous proposals to amend the Constitution to confer such authority have been introduced in Congress. But those whose business it is to amend the Constitution have not seen fit to amend it in this way.[/i]
Homo-activists are the ones pushing to ignore established precedent and make marriage subject to Federal Control, when it has long been delegated as a State Power.
They want Courts to do what the activist Court did in 1973 with Roe and establish homo-"marriage" nationwide via fiat. Short of that, they want the Courts to ignore established precedent and allow one State to make public policy for the rest of the State via a faulty reading of the FF&C Clause.