Yes, they did, but it was subject to the existing state's licensing requirements. It was not a right. And I am suggesting no such thing. I am clearly stating that marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution but what is, is that any unremunerated rights pass directly, not to the fed to decide, but the states and the people.
You are citing the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The problem with your argument is along came the 14th amendment which put a certain limit on the powers of the states. It states...
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So...the constitution does no specifically mention "marriage" but it does mention "laws" and same sex marriage bans happen to be "laws" and as a matter of argument they happen to be "laws" which deprive certain people " of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and deny certain people with their jurisdiction "equal protection."
Now if you need further precedent we have Loving versus Virginia which was the court case in 1968 in which the Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage bans and as the majority decision stated...
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
So to take the "state marriage bans are fine because marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution" argument would mean that SCOTUS was somehow wrong in striking down the interracial marriage bans on the grounds of the 14th amendment. It just is not a historically or Constitutionally sound argument to make.