I think I read somewhere that the Judge did not reference Baker v Nelson in his decision. I perused his lenghty decision and did note references to Griswold and Loving in his opinion. In 1972 the MN Sup Court in Baker ruled that the state law did not violate the US Constitution and in the process reviewed these precedents and found them as lacking precedent:

....On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, and specifically ruled that Minnesota's limiting of marriage to opposite-sex unions "does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution".
http://tripatlas.com/Baker_v._Nelson

Case then goes to the US Supreme Court, which issues a 1 sentence order and dismisses the case "for want of a federal question". Baker then, as settled law, goes on to be cited as precedent in federal cases over the years.

I wonder why Judge Walker did not address Baker in his decision? Isn't he making a "federal question" of this issue and in doing so going against settled law? Yet he makes no mention of Baker? Maybe that's why the Ninth Circuit put the brakes on it.
Maybe they see problems with it and want a remand to dress it up for it's trip to Washington. Or maybe they want to take the time to mention Baker in the deliberation process? Who knows? I will leave that up to the lawyers.