Thats actually false, precedent was that marriage definition was a states right.
Yes, and that hasn't changed. The states haven't been allowed to discriminate without sufficient justification in their marriage laws for decade. The decision in OBergfell came down on exactly the line of legal reasoning that applied in Loving v. Virginia, just as I've always been saying it would.
For example, one state doesn't have to recognize a common law marriage from another state and can define its own law there, just like some states allowed for gay marriage and many made laws to define marriage as a man and woman. Those were based on precedents of states rights who made their laws based on the voters will as it should be.
That's not entirely true, although the frontiers of it haven't been fully litigated. A state is Constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to the acts of another state. It may be that one state could refuse to recognize a marriage from another, but it would have to give a Constitutionally allowable reason, and I'm not sure what that would be.