I’m just saying, reread the case. It’s all there.
State governments cannot reinterpret marriage to permit polygamy. One man and one woman.
Feds can’t reinterpret marriage either but they have the responsibility of defending marriage. This is to permit marriages across the country to be recognised anywhere else.
What. Case. Are. You. Talking. About?
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), which is the only "Reynolds" case that I know of that touches on polygamy. If so, that case doesn't hold (or even discuss) what you assert.
From the decision, here are the questions of law that were determined in that particular case...
" 1. Was the indictment bad because found by a grand jury of less than sixteen persons?Are you sure you aren't confused about the name of the case to which you are referring?2. Were the challenges of certain petit jurors by the accused improperly overruled?
3. Were the challenges of certain other jurors by the government improperly sustained?
4. Was the testimony of Amelia Jane Schofield, given at a former trial for the same offence, but under another indictment, improperly admitted in evidence?
5. Should the accused have been acquitted if he married the second time, because he believed it to be his religious duty?
6. Did the court err in that part of the charge which directed the attention of the jury to the consequences of polygamy?