The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the state's probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, saying a previous federal ruling that gay-marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution does not preclude them from following state law.
In a 7-1 decision, the court ruled that "Alabama law allows for 'marriage' between only one man and one woman" and that the state's probate judges "have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law."
Gay marriages began in some Alabama counties Feb. 9 after a decision by U.S. District Judge Callie Granade of Mobile, who ruled that Alabama's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.
Immediately after the judge's ruling, Chief Justice Roy Moore told probate judges that they were not obligated to issue same-sex marriage licenses. His stance created confusion, prompting some judges to refuse to issue the licenses and others to shut down their operations for all couples -- gay and straight -- until they could get a clear answer.
The court's ruling Tuesday came in response to a request from the Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program to halt same-sex unions after Granade's ruling.
Justice Jim Main agreed with the result but said he has concerns about procedural aspects "of this highly unusual case."
In a dissent, Justice Greg Shaw said it was "unfortunate" that federal courts refused to delay gay marriage in the state until the U.S. Supreme Court could settle the issue nationally. But, Shaw said, the state Supreme Court doesn't have the power to consider the issue.
Joe Godfrey, executive director of the Alabama Citizens Action Program, said he was "very excited" about the decision, adding that it will provide "some stability" in Alabama until the U.S Supreme Court rules later this year.
An attorney for couples who filed suit to allow gay marriages said the court showed "callous disregard" in the decision and overstepped its bounds by declaring that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriages is constitutional, something the justices hadn't been asked to consider.
Information for this article was contributed by Campbell Robertson and staff members of The New York Times.
A Section on 03/04/2015