Here is the foundation of the rulinlg that struck down California's prop 8:

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote. The ruling struck down Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process.

In fact, Walker is right; that which society considered as "the norm" for millenia was one man and one woman. Much of society now considers homosexuality the norm. So Walker is saying because moral and religious views are depriving gays of equal protection. As I've said all along, if that's the case, why can't three men make the same argument. Why can't three brothers make the same argument. Why can't a mother, son and his first cousin make the same argument.

Walker is saying the definition of marriage as between a man and woman is arbitrary. That definition has existed for thousands of years. By Walker's logic, that history counts for nothing. How long then, before the next broadening of the definition, and the next and the next, until the word "marriage" needs nothing.