I wouldn't be surprised if that happens. It would be completely against precedent and frankly insane to argue that the constitution doesn't protect SSM, but there's already precedence that states don't have to give full faith and credit to other states' marriages. However, if SSM is protected everywhere, the latter ruling will have no practical effect.
This is why laypeople make for lousy arbiters of constitutional law.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The constitution doesn't have to mention marriage.
If you think that's true, you are clearly a person who has always been in the comfortable majority and never been discriminated against by your state government, only to be protected by the federal constitution.
Also, you know, why does the tenth amendment refer to both, then? Clearly, in the amendment you cited, the people and the states are different things. I think you just like state governments better because they will more readily enforce your prejudices and hurt people you don't like.
9th. See above and also currently my signature. The 9th is a pretty awesome amendment, and it means that "the constitution doesn't say you have a right to _____" is always wrong. No matter what.