"On June 26, 2015, by a bare 5-4 majority, the United States Supreme Court declared that all states must now recognize a fundamental right to "same-sex marriage." Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Because the Alabama Supreme Court had previously issued orders in this case directing the probate judges of this State not to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex, the Court requested briefing on the effect of Obergefell on those orders. See Ex parte State ex rel. Alabama Policy Inst., [Ms. 1140460, March 3, March 10, & March 12, 2015] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2015). Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court's holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional. Therefore, and for the reasons stated below, I concur with the order."
The order dismisses "all pending motions and petitions" -- and those pending motions and petitions sought to have the Alabama Supreme Court defy Obergefell and grant relief from having to issue gay marriage certificates.
Everything written after the simple statement of dismissal consists simply of concurrences in the dismissal by several individual justices. Moore's lengthy concurrence makes it confusing, because he goes to great lengths to express his vehement disagreement with Obergefell, and at the end states his belief that the March 2015 order upholding the constitutionality of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act still stands. Then he immediately (and even more confusingly) states that he concurs in the dismissal.
The concurrence by Justice Stuart on the following page (p. 106) lets one know what the upshot is of Moore's confusing concurrence/dissent/whatever you want to call it:
Motions and petitions are dismissed without explanation by this Court for numerous reasons as a matter of routine. When a Justice issues a writing concurring in or dissenting from an order summarily dismissing a pending motion or petition the writing expresses the explanation for the vote of only the Justice who issues the writing and of any Justice who joins the writing. Attributing the reasoning and explanation in a special concurrence or a dissent to a Justice who did not issue or join the writing is erroneous and unjust.Bottom line: Moore is speaking for himself, and the petitioners do not get a declaration that the March 2015 order affords them relief from having to grant gay marriage licenses. That order, as Justice Shaw makes clear in his concurrence (p. 146), "no longer has a field of operation or any legal effect."
Carry on.