That ruling ends any definition of “marriage.”
If the courts rule that a marriage doesn’t have to be between a man and woman, then why should it limit marriage between species, or more than 2 people?
You are arguing some of the merits of Prop 8.
The current news here has nothing to do with the merits but rather a set of tactics to overturn the will of the people by a deceitful federal application of equal treatment and due process followed by a refusal to process grievances based on a lack of standing.
We are witnessing the homosexual left pulling out all the legal stops to shut down religious expression in public; people’s will be damned.
I was always troubled by the definition of marriage that most states were passing that said that marriage only the marriage of one man and one woman would be valid or recognized by a state. The reason being that the definition still opens the door for polygamy, because technically speaking couldn't you argue that polygamy is only the relationship between one man and one woman. After all, the woman isn't married to the other wives, just the one husband. So polygamy is really a case in which one man has many separate marriages, but each marriage is only between one man and one woman. The definition never actually says that each individual may only contract one valid marriage at a time.
Polygamy would be easier to rule as being valid marriage, as it is legal many countries, and historically had been recognized even in the Bible (at least for kings).