*shrugs* If they did, it's an overstep that's been performed repeatedly in the past (read: It almost certainly isn't.). The court decision is precisely in line with several other similar cases that have included stuff under the 14th's protection.
Which is actually sorta' the problem. Little bit more reading has shown it
was actually a kinda' shitty decision,* primarily because of how little it actually
did, as well as being a kinda' poor bit of actually... judge-y stuff. Instead of actually solving the goddamn issue on a judicial level (like, say, making sexual orientation a strict scrutiny issue, which could have been done years ago and nipped a whole hell of a lot of bullshit in the bud), the SCOTUS has just sorta' brought SSM whole cloth and singularly into the 14th (very roughly paraphrasing, and with a very much lay understanding of the legal stuff involved). One of the more insightful bits I've read so far was
this post, on another forum (you'd be fairly well benefited mostly ignoring the rest of the thread it's in :V), decently detailing a fair amount of the actual issues involved.
It almost certainly wasn't constitutional overreach, though. Bit on the bad side of craft, but historically well within the court's power, insofar as I've been able to tell, if a power they've been fairly careful about exercising.
*Mind you, the consequence of SSM being legal is goddamn
golden. It could have just been done significantly better.