On Monday, July 15, 2013 the California State Supreme Court without explanation refused to issue an emergency halt to same sex marriage as requested in the latest petition filed by Project Marriage on behalf of Ernest Droneburg, a San Diego county clerk. The legal brief filed on Friday, July 12, 2013 asked that the California State Supreme Court stop same sex marriage until the legal arguments could be considered in full. The legal brief was filed in the California State Supreme Court as the United States Supreme Court has already barred them from defending Proposition 8 in federal court.

Project Marriage is arguing that State officials incorrectly interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 28, 2013 decision. Since the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule directly on the Perry Case, Project Marriage’s position is that the U.S. Supreme Court did not make same sex marriage legal they simply “tossed out” the gay marriage ban on a legal technicality.

Project Marriage’s further argues that the original lawsuit filed in San Francisco only named county clerks of Los Angeles and Alameda counties and therefore does not apply to the other 56 counties in the state of California.  In addition they propose that State registers had no authority to instruct county clerks in these 56 counties to comply with the Governor and Attorney General’s order to resume issuing same sex marriage licenses.

In response to the California State Supreme Court’s refusal to halt same sex marriage, The County Counsel’s Association of California is drafting an opposition petition that more than 20 other county clerks are expected to file by Monday, July 22, 2013.

The Friday, July 12, 2013 filing was the second attempt by Proposition 8 supporters to halt same sex marriage in California after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 28, 2013 ruling. The first petition was filed one day after this ruling. They argued that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lacked the authority to remove the same sex marriage ban because the 25 day waiting period before the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its final disposition (sending a certified copy of the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) had not yet passed. Failing to do so, deprived them of their right of a reasonable amount of time to prepare a petition for rehearing. This petition was also denied without comment on June 30, 2013.