Two state supreme courts dealt same-sex marriage a pair of setbacks today, as the Arizona panel refused to hear a case brought by two homosexual men, and California justices, in hearing arguments in a San Francisco case, appeared to disapprove of the city's mayor issuing licenses to couples of the same gender.

In the Grand Canyon state, the Supreme Court decided not to hear Standhardt v. Arizona, a case brought by two single men who were denied a marriage license. The Arizona Court of Appeals dismissed the suit on Oct. 8, and the homosexuals sought review by the state Supreme Court.

"This is a fantastic victory in the defense of marriage," said Gary McCaleb, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, in a statement. "We are extremely pleased at the Arizona Supreme Court's decision not to hear this case. Arizona's marriage laws are clear. The Arizona Court of Appeals understood that, and now the Supreme Court has agreed. The plaintiffs simply had no case."

ADF represented Arizona state Sen. Mark Anderson as a friend of the court. The group's amicus brief argued Harold Donald Standhardt and Tod Alan Keltner, the men denied a marriage license, misrepresented the law, that the Massachusetts Goodridge opinion does not control Arizona law and that there is no national "trend" toward same-sex marriage.

"Although the majority of Americans consistently oppose same-sex 'marriage,' homosexual activists have filed lawsuit after lawsuit in an attempt to find radical judges who will tear down democratically enacted laws and impose a radical, nation-changing agenda on an unwilling public," McCaleb said.

In California, the seven-member Supreme Court heard arguments in a case dealing with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's issuing of thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of the law.

Questions from the justices during the two-hour session lead observers to believe the panel would not rule to approve Newsom's action, saying such a decision would give local officials the option of choosing which laws they want to follow.

"Wouldn't that be setting a problematic precedent?" asked Justice Joyce Kennard. "Presumably, other local officials would be free to say ... I don't like that particular law, be it a ban on guns" or another issue.

There was not clear consensus, however, on how the court might deal with the status of the marriages Newsom sanctioned when he issued licenses in February to 4,000 couples.

One lesbian activist put a positive spin on the court session.

"I am very hopeful, based on the nature of the court's questions and their sensitivity to this issue, that they could craft a solution where they would find the mayor exceeded his authority without finding that the marriages are invalid," Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the Associated Press.

The court is expected to rule within 90 days.

Related stories:

Same-sex marriage barricades erected

U.S. Supreme Court won't block same-sex marriage

Judge won't stop same-sex marriage

Suit filed to stop same-sex marriage

9 days to same-sex marriage

Bill seeks ouster of Massachusetts justices

Federal Marriage Amendment dead?

How homosexual activists took America by surprise

California high court blocks S.F. 'marriages'

Bush announces support for marriage amendment

Activists respond to Bush amendment stance

Marriage defenders slow same-sex tide

Mayor facing charges for same-sex weddings

Another city backs same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage comes to N.Y. town

Action filed to remove S.F. mayor, AG