Can AGs convince California Supreme Court to stay its same-sex marriage ruling?

Earlier on this blog, I reported on the case of In re Marriage Cases decided May 15, 2008 by the California Supreme Court holding that two state laws that had limited marriages to opposite-sex partners are unconstitutional and that single-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
   

The attorney generals of ten states (Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah) have petitioned the California Supreme Court to stay its decision which would legalize same-sex marriages as of June 17, 2008.
   

Here are some additional details from Jesse McKinley, States Seek Delay in California Marriage Ruling, NY Times, May 31, 2008:

[They] asked that the marriages be put off until after the November election, when California voters are expected to vote on a measure that would ban same-sex marriages.
   

The attorneys general said that allowing same-sex marriages now could unnecessarily open the door to legal challenges from gay residents of other states who get married in California. Upon returning to their home states, the newlyweds could demand equality in everything from tax-filing status to testimonial privileges in civil suits, the attorneys general said. * * *
   

The court is expected to issue a ruling on the stays by the end of business on June 16, said Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney, Dennis Herrera. * * *
   

The California attorney general, Jerry Brown, said on Friday that a stay was unnecessary. “Same-sex marriage is a deeply contentious issue, but in California the matter has now been resolved by the state Supreme Court,” he said.