It is my understanding, that the women in this case were married in Canada, where same-sex marriage was legal (quite some years ago) and one passed away. The other sued over taxes owed in the estate, claiming spouses get the estate tax-free, arguing that their marriage should be considered legal, because it was a legal ceremony, when and where it was performed.
And yes, if that is the case, it opens the door, to 'legal' marriages from other countries where one marries several women, or even their own sister.
One thought, on marriage being between any 'two consenting adults'. If that becomes law, what would prevent a widowed grandmother or grandfather from 'marrying' their adult grandchild? Then, their entire farm/estate/fortune can go on to the next generation tax-free, and in many cases, the grandchild would even get widow/widower benefits, on top of it? Beware the unintended consequences of this.
On the other hand, I hold the personal view that the Constitution does not give the Federal government jurisdiction over marriage, so it falls to the individual States over how they define 'marriage', but I also see the need for a 'civil union' of some sort, to provide equal protection, under the Constitution.
As for the decision in California, I strongly disagree with it. Basically the Supreme Court made a non-decision, claiming that individual people, or a group of people, cannot argue the constitutionality of a ballot initiative, that only the 'government' can make that argument in front of the court. I disagree with that, because it leaves open the door for a corrupt government to ignore any ballot inititive it disagrees with, simply by refusing to argue the case in court.
