SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court refused Monday to order the state to immediately stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

However, the court still plans to consider whether the governor and attorney general correctly instructed county clerks that a voter-approved ban on gay marriages had become legally invalid statewide.

Without comment, the court denied a request made Friday by backers of the ban for an emergency order that would have required the state to keep enforcing Proposition 8 while they pursue a last-ditch legal effort to preserve it.

"Although we would have preferred for the California Supreme Court to issue a stay so that the state's marriage amendment would be respected sooner rather than later ... we remain hopeful that the court will recognize that Proposition 8 remains the law of the land in California and that county clerks must continue to enforce it," said Austin Nimocks, a lawyer for the coalition of religious conservative groups that qualified Proposition 8 for the November 2008 ballot.

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, who spearheaded the lawsuit that resulted in gay marriage returning to the nation's most populous state after 4 1/2 years, cheered the state court's decision allowing the weddings to continue without interruption.

"Our opponents have failed in a desperate attempt to deny happiness and protections to lesbian and gay couples and their children and no amount of legal wrangling is going to undo that joy," Griffin said.

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in the nation's most populous state on June 28 by dismissing the backers' appeal of a lower court ruling that found the ban unconstitutional. The high court decided the backers lacked authority to defend Proposition 8 after the governor and attorney general refused to do so.

The California Supreme Court still plans to separately consider whether the lower court ruling that invalidated the ban and a companion mandate prohibiting the state from enforcing it applied statewide or only in Los Angeles and Alameda counties. The two couples who sued to strike down Proposition 8 live in those counties.

Lawyers for Proposition 8 sponsors also have argued that because the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule directly on Proposition 8's constitutionality, state officials are bound by state law to abide by the measure.

The state high court has asked for additional written arguments on those issues by Aug. 1.

A new medium-range missile is fired from a naval ship during Velayat-90 war game on Sea of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz in southern Iran January 1, 2012. REUTERS/Jamejamonline/Ebrahim Norouzi

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.N. Security Council committee is split over whether Iran's missile tests last year violated U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran because of its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, Australia's U.N. envoy said on Monday.

That division effectively rules out any expansion of sanctions against Tehran over the tests for the time being, U.N. envoys said on condition of anonymity.

Diplomats said it was Russia, backed by China, that refused to declare Tehran's missile launches a violation of the U.N. restrictions, as a U.N. Panel of Experts on Iran said was the case.

The rift on the Iran sanctions committee, which consists of all 15 Security Council members, highlights the difficulties Western powers face in persuading Russia and China to join them in keeping up the pressure on Tehran to halt banned nuclear and missile work.

Iran rejects allegations by the United States, European powers and their allies that it is developing an atomic weapons capability. It says the U.N. sanctions against it are illegal and refuses to comply with them.

As long as the sanctions committee remains divided, it will be difficult for the Security Council to add names of any Iranian individuals or entities linked to the missile tests, Security Council diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

Australia's U.N. Ambassador Gary Quinlan, chairman of the Iran sanctions committee, told the council that "a number of committee members expressed the view ... that the launches constituted a clear violation of (U.N. sanctions) and that therefore all member states should redouble their efforts to implement ballistic missile-related sanctions on Iran."

"At this stage some committee members cannot share this view," he added in his latest three-month report to the council.

The tests involved the launch of Iranian Shahab missiles in July 2012 during the "Great Prophet 7" military exercises.

"These included launches of the Shahab 1 and 3, Zelzal, Fateh-110 and Tondar missiles, as well as an anti-ship ballistic missile, the Khalij Fars," the Iran Panel of Experts said in its May report to the Iran sanctions committee.

'HASTY CONCLUSIONS'

The panel said those exercises were conducted by the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Russia, diplomats said, led the dissenters in rejecting the view that the tests were a clear violation of U.N. sanctions.

A Russian delegate explained Moscow's position to the Security Council, saying "hasty conclusions not based on facts must be avoided."

A Chinese delegate reiterated Beijing's stance: "We are not in favor of increased new pressure or new sanctions against Iran."

U.S. Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo told reporters, "We're disappointed that the (Iran sanctions) committee was unable in this case to state the obvious."

"There is nothing ambiguous about the ban imposed by the Security Council on such ... missile launches," she said. "Most of the Security Council members agree with us on this issue."

Quinlan's report also referred to alleged arms embargo violations.

Western powers accuse Iran of supplying arms to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and militant groups like Lebanon's Hezbollah, which has been fighting alongside Assad's troops in Syria to defeat rebels in the civil war there.

"Several committee members stated that the evidence presented in the report was sufficient to assert that Iran was in violation of its obligations, illustrating a pattern of sanctions evasion through arms smuggling in the Middle East," his report said.

"Other committee members stated that the lack of stronger evidence as to the provenance of the arms, such as documentation, justified the lack of a definitive conclusion," his report added.

Russia and China were the "other committee members" who opposed finding Tehran in clear violation of the U.N. ban on Iranian arms exports, council diplomats said.

(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau; Editing by Xavier Briand)By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.N. Security Council committee is split over whether Iran's missile tests last year violated U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran because of its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, Australia's U.N. envoy said on Monday.

That division effectively rules out any expansion of sanctions against Tehran over the tests for the time being, U.N. envoys said on condition of anonymity.

Diplomats said it was Russia, backed by China, that refused to declare Tehran's missile launches a violation of the U.N. restrictions, as a U.N. Panel of Experts on Iran said was the case.

The rift on the Iran sanctions committee, which consists of all 15 Security Council members, highlights the difficulties Western powers face in persuading Russia and China to join them in keeping up the pressure on Tehran to halt banned nuclear and missile work.

Iran rejects allegations by the United States, European powers and their allies that it is developing an atomic weapons capability. It says the U.N. sanctions against it are illegal and refuses to comply with them.

As long as the sanctions committee remains divided, it will be difficult for the Security Council to add names of any Iranian individuals or entities linked to the missile tests, Security Council diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

Australia's U.N. Ambassador Gary Quinlan, chairman of the Iran sanctions committee, told the council that "a number of committee members expressed the view ... that the launches constituted a clear violation of (U.N. sanctions) and that therefore all member states should redouble their efforts to implement ballistic missile-related sanctions on Iran."

"At this stage some committee members cannot share this view," he added in his latest three-month report to the council.

The tests involved the launch of Iranian Shahab missiles in July 2012 during the "Great Prophet 7" military exercises.

"These included launches of the Shahab 1 and 3, Zelzal, Fateh-110 and Tondar missiles, as well as an anti-ship ballistic missile, the Khalij Fars," the Iran Panel of Experts said in its May report to the Iran sanctions committee.

'HASTY CONCLUSIONS'

The panel said those exercises were conducted by the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Russia, diplomats said, led the dissenters in rejecting the view that the tests were a clear violation of U.N. sanctions.

A Russian delegate explained Moscow's position to the Security Council, saying "hasty conclusions not based on facts must be avoided."

A Chinese delegate reiterated Beijing's stance: "We are not in favor of increased new pressure or new sanctions against Iran."

U.S. Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo told reporters, "We're disappointed that the (Iran sanctions) committee was unable in this case to state the obvious."

"There is nothing ambiguous about the ban imposed by the Security Council on such ... missile launches," she said. "Most of the Security Council members agree with us on this issue."

Quinlan's report also referred to alleged arms embargo violations.

Western powers accuse Iran of supplying arms to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and militant groups like Lebanon's Hezbollah, which has been fighting alongside Assad's troops in Syria to defeat rebels in the civil war there.

"Several committee members stated that the evidence presented in the report was sufficient to assert that Iran was in violation of its obligations, illustrating a pattern of sanctions evasion through arms smuggling in the Middle East," his report said.

"Other committee members stated that the lack of stronger evidence as to the provenance of the arms, such as documentation, justified the lack of a definitive conclusion," his report added.

Russia and China were the "other committee members" who opposed finding Tehran in clear violation of the U.N. ban on Iranian arms exports, council diplomats said.

(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau; Editing by Xavier Briand)

A juror in the George Zimmerman trial made her first public appearances since the trial reached its verdict on Saturday, saying race did not play a role in the jury’s decision but admitted she believes Zimmerman went "above and beyond" his role as a neighborhood watch member.

Juror B37, who asked to remain her anonymity, said she did not find the prosecution’s witnesses to be credible and that race did not play a role in the jury’s decision.

However, she also acknowledged her belief that Zimmerman went "above and beyond" in his decision to ignore police direction by confronting Trayvon Martin.

Appearing on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” she said neither she nor any of the other jurors discussed race when reviewing the case.

“I don’t think it did. If there was another person, Spanish, white, Asian; if they came in the same situation as Trayvon did, I think George would have reacted the same way,” she said.

“I think all of us thought race did not play a role. We never had that discussion. I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch and he profiled anyone that was acting strange.”

However, she did acknowledge that the jury was initially split on the decision, saying that two jurors initially pushed for a manslaughter charge and a third pushed for a second-degree murder conviction. Eventually, all settled on not guilty verdict.

And in a revealing moment, the juror said Zimmerman went “above and beyond” acceptable action by confronting Martin.

“[Zimmerman] got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhood and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he should have,” she said. “It just went terribly wrong. I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and called 911 he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car.”

Juror B37 says she wants to maintain her anonymity but she has been willing to speak out on the case. As reported earlier on Monday, juror B37 announced plans to write a tell-all book about her experiences on the jury in the Zimmerman trial .

“Nobody knew exactly what happened,” Juror B37 said when asked about the specific details of the case. “I don’t think anybody knows.”

When asked if she feels sorry for the death of Trayvon Martin, she responded, “I feel sorry for both of them.”

“I think both of them were responsible for the situation they got themselves into,” she added. “I think they each could have made the decision to walk away.”

And in another revealing exchange, the juror said that while she agrees with the decision to return Zimmerman’s gun, she at first appeared hesitant when asked if she would want him serving in neighborhood watch in her own neighborhood.

“I think he has every right to carry a gun. I think everyone has a right to carry a gun.”

But Juror B37 paused for several seconds when Cooper asked about serving on a neighborhood watch in her own community.

“If he didn’t go too far,” she said. “He didn’t stop at the limitations he should have stopped at. I would feel comfortable having George, but I think he’s learned a good lesson. I think he didn’t know when to stop.”

Juror B37 said she never wants to serve on a jury again. And admitted she has concerns about her own safety following the verdict.

“I’m not really scared, but I want to be cautious,” she said. “We cried over it afterwards. I don’t think any of us could ever do anything like that again.”

The young friend of slain teenager Trayvon Martin made her first public remarks since George Zimmerman was found not guilty on Saturday, vigorously defending Martin's reputation and saying race played a role in his death and Zimmerman's acquittal.

Appearing on CNN’s “Piers Morgan” program, Rachel Jeantel responded to avalanche of public attention following her testimony as Zimmerman’s trial.

“Don West is lucky I’m a Christian,” Jeantel, 19, said when asked how she was treated in the courtroom by defense attorney Don West. “The only reason I have not said anything to Don West is because my parents have taught me better.”

Asked for her response to the jury’s not guilty verdict, Jeantel was circumspect, saying, “Disappointed. Upset. Angry. Question [sic]. And mad.”

She also added that while Trayvon Martin did occasionally smoke marijuana, he never displayed aggressive behavior or expressed an interest in firearms. She said that Martin likely smoked marijuana about two times per week, and that it was a normal amount for teens in the area.

“In my area, weed for Trayvon, weed don’t make him go crazy,” she said. “It just make him hungry.”

And despite recent comments from one of the jurors in the case, Jeantel says she does believe race played a role in Zimmerman’s actions and in the jury’s decision to acquit him.

“It was racial. Let’s be honest,” she said. “If Trayvon was white and he had a hoodie on, would that have happened? It happened around 7 o’clock, that’s when people walk their dogs.”

And on the jury saying race played no role: “They’re white.”

Jeantel says she “had a feeling” that Zimmerman would be found not guilty.

She also had a strong response to those who have mocked her for her unusual speaking style during her testimony, explaining that her speaking style is due to an overbite for which she has received medical treatment.

“A lot of people have the same issue I have right now. I have an under bite,” she said.

“It’s not that I didn’t want to be there,” she added. “There was a lot of stress. I’d been dealing with a lot of stress for 16 months. I had been grieving.”

She also said she thinks Zimmerman should have taken the stand in his own defense. When asked what she now thinks of Zimmerman, she said, “Weak. Scary. Hiding from his father. If you were a real man, you would have stood on that stage and told them what happened.”