A federal appeals court on Wednesday denied a request by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to intervene in the case that struck down Oregon's gay marriage ban.

On May 19, U.S. District Judge Michael McShane declared Oregon's 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples invalid.

The state, which sided with plaintiffs in the case, immediately implemented McShane's order, making Oregon the 18th state to allow gay couples to marry.

NOM turned to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco after McShane denied its request to intervene in the case

The group also asked the Supreme Court to stay McShane's ruling as it seeks to intervene in the case. The court denied the request.

Jeana Frazzini, executive director of LGBT rights advocate Basic Rights Oregon applauded Wednesday's decision.

“We're thrilled by the news but not surprised at all,” she told The Oregonian. “There was never any merit to their proposal and they've been denied now at every turn.”

NOM President Brian Brown called the decision disappointing in a blog post and said the group was reviewing its options.

“We are of course disappointed with the Ninth Circuit's decision today,” Brown said.

“We believe that the decision conflicts with a prior Ninth Circuit opinion specifically recognizing that a County Clerk with the duty to issue marriage licenses likely would have standing to intervene and appeal an adverse judgment. NOM alleged under oath that it had among its members just such a county clerk, and it sought to intervene on the clerk's behalf under the Supreme Court's well-established precedent in the case of NAACP v. Alabama allowing membership organizations to pursue the interests of their members when there are substantial hurdles to the members litigating in their own name, such as the real threats of harassment and violence that have been manifested elsewhere in the country around the marriage issue. Because of that conflict, we will certainly be exploring whether to file a petition for rehearing en banc with the full Ninth Circuit or whether we will seek review in the Supreme Court itself,” he added.