Here is the background from azcentral.com.
After the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out bans on gay marriage in Utah and Idaho, a federal judge gave Horne and plaintiffs in a similar Arizona case one week to advise him on what the judge should do.
The plaintiffs filed long, detailed briefs explaining why the appeals court ruling applies to Arizona and arguing that the judge should immediately rule in their favor.
Horne's brief was much shorter, just two pages. Translated to a sports analogy, it says: We know we've lost the game. We don't even have a Hail Mary. But you ought to let us run out the clock.
Or, in legal language: The attorney general disagrees with the appeals court's conclusions (without arguing them), but acknowledges that the decision applies to Arizona. However, he argues, the district judge shouldn't rely on the decision until the appeal court makes it final. That hasn't yet happened.
Delay for delay's sake, in other words. Technicalities.
It's a disappointing stance.
The editors come out strongly in favor of getting on with the "inevitable".
[Horne should acknowledge the inevitable and honor] the many committed gay and lesbian couples who have waited patiently for the legal and societal benefits a marriage license confers. It will be theirs within a few days. Horne only looks small for insisting on a delay.
Gay and lesbian couples have forged lifetime bonds without any of the legal certainties their heterosexual neighbors have enjoyed. As they gain those certainties, the institution of marriage will be strengthened. This is something to celebrate, not postpone.
Some days it's just not enough to "go figure". Are these editors the same ones who endorsed Dicey Ducey who racks up a perfect score with Cathi Herrod's bunch?