Brian Lyman and Rick Harmon, The Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser, March 3, 2015

MONTGOMERY — The Alabama Supreme Court Tuesday ordered probate judges in the state to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses, creating a potential constitutional crisis in the state.

U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade struck down the state's 1998 and 2006 same-sex marriage bans in two separate decisions late last month, saying they violated same-sex couples' 14th Amendment equal protection and due process rights. However, the Alabama Supreme Court, writing that "state courts may interpret United States Constitution from, and even contrary to, federal courts," ruled that the bans were not intended to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.

"Traditional-marriage laws do not discriminate based on gender: All men and all women are equally entitled to enter the institution of marriage," the justices wrote. "Only by redefining the term 'marriage' to mean something it is not (and in the process assuming an answer as part of the question), can this statement be challenged. Put in the negative, traditional-marriage laws do not discriminate on the basis of gender because all men and all women are equally restricted to marriage between the opposite sexes. "

The opinion echoed many arguments previously made by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who has fought same-sex marriage in the state. The opinion gave other probate judges five days to explain to the court why they should not have to discontinue the practice.

Six justices joined the opinion. Associate Justice Jim Main concurred in part with the ruling, but Justice Greg Shaw dissented. Shaw wrote that he wished that the federal court ruling had been stayed. However, he added that he believed Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program, which sought the decision, did not have standing before the court.

"Government officials cannot be sued simply because a person thinks the officials are doing something wrong; the thing they are doing must result in "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent" harm to the person seeking judicial relief," Shaw wrote.

Moore's name was not on the opinion.

LGBT groups quickly criticized the ruling.

"The Alabama state Supreme Court does not have the authority to interfere with a federal court order," said HRC Legal Director Sarah Warbelow in a statement. "This order is outrageous and baffling, and no amount of legalese can hide the bare animus that forms the foundation of this extralegal ruling."

The Alabama Policy Institute said in a statement that the decision "gives the people of Alabama the respect that they deserve by preserving our law until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the issue." The nation's high court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage later this year.

The legal status of the hundreds of same-sex marriage couples who have already married in Alabama was not immediately clear.

The justices of the Alabama Supreme Court all attended the annual State of the State speech Tuesday evening. They declined to answer reporters' questions about their ruling. State officials who attended the speech were caught off guard by the decision, handed down late on Tuesday, and most did not have an immediate comment.

The opinion also noted that love was cited as a reason same-sex individuals should be allowed to marry.

"Under this theory, a person has a right to marry the person he or she loves regardless of that person's gender. This notion has broad public appeal and is, perhaps, the mantra most repeated in public discussions of this matter," the opinion states.

But then it goes on to say that love is not a legal factor.

"Civil marriage has no public interest in whether the people seeking a marriage license love one another," the justices wrote.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...iages/24343503/