To be fair, it was: nothing in the Constitution delegates to the federal government the power to define marriage, and the 10th would indicate that as such it is up to the States, or the people [thereof].
What they did not settle was the precidence of the 10th Amendment over the 14th Ammendment. As it stands, the current judges are favoring the 14th over the 10th
To be perfectly fair: that's the way it should be — later amendments can kill earlier ones (if not, then Amd 18 and 21 have some explaining to do).
However, that said, nothing in the 14th amendment would constrain the States to accept homosexual-marriage: only that the definition of marriage cannot be dependent upon the people involved. For example, if I had an unmarried homosexual brother he could [legally] marry exactly all the women that I could [legally] marry: all unmarried women, not of close relation, over the marrying age. IOW, his sexual preference have no impact on whom he may marry, and therefore such rules are not violative of the 14th Amendment.
See, they're trying to pull a fast one and conflate the groups of whom you want to have sex with and whom you can marry, implying that some restriction by law on the former is the same as restriction on the latter.
You are correct. The issues of Marriage is NOT an enumerated power however there is the “full faith and credit” clause.