As you probably know, NOM wants the Supreme Court to stay implementation of Geiger v. Kitzhaber, the Oregon ruling legalizing marriage equality. This should be denied for two reasons:
1. There are no parties defending the ban. Literally. No one argued in court that the ban should be upheld. Justice McShane actually hypothesized about any rational bases for the ban, because no one else presented any. Normally, a stay of a ruling is a "stay pending appeal". But at the moment, the ruling cannot be appealed, because there is no one to appeal it. Because, at least for a moment, there is no appeal, the ruling cannot be "stayed pending appeal". Should NOM be granted intervenor status, there may be an appeal, but until then, a stay should be out of the question.
2. But even with that in mind, intervenor status is either unlikely or irrelevant. This is because Oregon is not defending the ban. This was also the case with Prop 8 in California. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court ruled that they lacked the authority to take the case, and that the Ninth Circuit did as well. For this reason, they ordered the Ninth Circuit's decision to be vacated. It is obvious that neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court have the authority to hear an appeal against McShane's ruling. Considering that there will be no appeal, the ban cannot be "stayed pending appeal".
If the stay is denied, as it should be, it will be another failure on NOM's record. Can't wait.