The proponents of Proposition 8 in California, showing that there's no loser like a sore loser, are back in court today, trying to halt gay weddings in California via a number of technical arguments. Leaving aside the utter mean-spiritedness of such efforts (which should be no surprise at this point, and indeed are self-evident), Their arguments rely on technical issues of law that are most likely makeweight at best.
I admit to not be familiar enough with these particular technicalities to pass authoritative judgment on them (not my field of law), but I invite anybody better versed in them to flesh out my own analysis.
As the Prop 8 proponents see it, the Supreme Court ruling that they lacked standing to challenge Judge Walker's decision throwing out Prop 8 (in San Francisco Federal Court) left only that ruling intact. That ruling, they contend, is not an appellate one sufficient to have the power to require the state to issue same sex marriage licenses. In addition, since the original suit only named the county clerks of Los Angeles and Alameda Counties, the injunction issued by Judge Walker can only bind those clerks (or, I would suppose, clerks of counties within the Northern District of California, which includes San Francisco and Alameda. Prop 8, in other words, remains in effect for the rest of the state, according to this argument.
Governor Brown ordered all California county clerks immediately to start issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples upon the Supreme Court's ruling, citing a legal opinion from Attorney General Kama Harris that the Walker injunctive ruling had power over all California counties.
This gets into very technical issues of the reach of a District Court ruling, the power of persuasive authority, the respective roles of state and federal Courts (the Prop 8 proponents have appealed today to the California Supreme Court), and the authority of the state government over county clerks (who are independently elected local officials ,though obviously charged with acting in accordance with state law). It's an interesting tack, but one I think is not going to work on a real world level. Whether the bigots like it or not, the gay marriage ship has sailed in California.
As I said above, I invite anyone with deeper understanding of the ins and outs of this field of law to comment. I don't claim to be an expert in this stuff (I slept through civil procedure!).