Is SCOTUS in redefining marriage the first time that the Court has created law outside of their Constitutional authority?

The problem is much simpler than your question implies.

In the first instance it's laughable when people argue what the founding fathers meant or didn't mean. It's even more ludicrous to think that they could encapsulate a Constitution that would prevent expansion being defined moral guidelines and yet be flexible enough to deal with unimagined advances in society and technology. In other words any constitution is going to be flawed and ultimately be either impossible or unreasonable to adhere to.

So the principle of the Court exceeding constitutional authority is at some point absolutely necessary for any kind of balanced, reasonable, fair society.

Secondly this does not mean I support the way the Court has exceeded their authority in this case. I believe that ultimately the only authority any court has is the authority it has been given. In the case of the supreme court some may contend this authority came from the people and in a practical sense they're right. However, ultimately God institutes all authority and the supreme court operates only as He allows them to. If they operate that authority within the morals bounds given by God then their decisions, lives and all the implications will be good. If they deviate from those moral bounds then in effect they are in rebellion from God and neither they nor we can expect their to be no divine consequences as God withdraws His blessing from the nation.

It's very very sad..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSXuybAXoIs

We'll know that if a legitimate referendum was put forth without misleading questions asked in each state about how marriage should be defined, most of Americans would make the same decision.

But we also know after seeing it go on in state after GOP lead state that they have no intention of asking a clear and straight up question of what the people actually want. They would never let that happen. GOP leaders prefer it this way so they can go around saying it's unconstitutional.

You don't have to like the law of the land or gays at all. Nobody is interested in wondering what it's like to watch your goofy asses have sex either.

It wasn't until Jesus' followers preached throughout the Roman Empire 1 man for 1 woman that the surrounding nations started thinking in those terms before that they only understood male/female, weak/ strong, Dom /submissive, etc.

We are a secular nation like it or not. A few conservatives or liberals shouldn't get to jam their beliefs done our throats.

The Court is within their authority.

Another case in point: there is NOTHING in the Constitution about obscenity. The 1st ammendment does protect freedom of the press and of speech. Yet the Court rled that governments can ban or regulate material considered obscene. Conservatives have no problem with the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench" on that topic.

So here's the bottom line: you don't get to have your cake and eat it,too. Either the Court has that authority or it doesn't. You don't get to cherry pick the issues for which the Court is allowed to exercise judicial activism.

SCOTUS isn't making a law, it's setting a precedent that marriage cannot be discriminated against based on sexuality, which is then enforced like a law. They've done similar things like this before. See Brown v Board

All laws have names and clauses or subsections.

Which law did they create?

Or did they simply review some laws that were created by certain states and decide those laws could not be supported under the US constitution?

...Which would be a thing that the SCOTUS has done regularly for decades now.

I'd like to know where heterosexual marriage is mentioned in the Constitution.

This whole thing is a contrived controversy cooked up by the left so they'll have something to demonize the right with. What throws a wrench in that works is that true conservatives who aren't led around by the Bible don't give a rat's @ss.

No but that's not what they did

The Supreme Court has been doing that since John Jay was chief Justice

Marriage has not changed its definition. It just expanded to include people left out which is discrimination.

No. It simply ruled that state bans against gay marriage are unconstitutional. In which case I would disagree since defining marriage isn't a function of government, definitely not one of the Federal government. If anything, it should have been left a state issue.