You may have even heard that since the citizen-bigots can't demonstrate how they'd be individually harmed by the issuance of such marriage licenses, they're not likely to have a legal basis for their emergency stay or appeal.
Dennis Herrera, the city attorney of San Francisco, separately filed an opposition to the request for an emergency stay, noting there's yet another reason why the citizen-bigots (herein, "Appellants") lack standing to appeal:
In light of Supreme Court's decision in AOE, and in light of the fact that California law is no different from Arizona's, Appellants presumably could have included a provision in Proposition 8 that would have authorized them to represent the interests of the State in any litigation involving the measure. Indeed, another initiative measure on the very same ballot contained an analogous provision. The measure created a legislative redistricting commission, and gave the commission, rather than the Attorney General, sole authority to defend any action...Proposition 8's sponsors, having failed to include a similar provision in their initiative, cannot now complain about their lack of Article III standing.One hopes Mr. Herrera's point will be the requisite coup de grâce.
It will probably turn out that most of these initiatives didn't include the provision allowing the various citizen-bigot organizations to stand in the shoes of the various attorneys general for the purpose of appeal — which might be helpful where a particular attorney general understands the concepts of "equal protection," "due process," and "fundamental rights."
Anyway, it just gets interestinger and interestinger.