Prop 8 opponent Chris Geidner chastises some on his side:

[Their] thinking goes like this: Proponents, as intervenors (as opposed to the actual defendants), don't have the ability to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court or, as the plaintiffs argued on Friday in opposing the stay sought by the proponents, even to the Ninth Circuit. What's more, people argue, the Supreme Court wouldn't take the case even if the proponents get to the point of asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Some might say that the lawyers for the plaintiffs should do whatever they can to win the case, but, with this argument, I don't believe it is wise or even necessarily correct. [...T]he appellate courts are the safeguard of the federal judiciary. A federal district court judge -- like Walker -- is subject to review from the Ninth Circuit, which is then subject to the review of the Supreme Court. Setting up the opponents of marriage equality like the National Organization for Marriage and others by trying to stop that appellate process risks giving legitimacy to what has been, thus far, an illegitimate argument.

For you law wonks out there, here is the plaintiffs' opposition to motion for stay of the ruling.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.