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.
See my #29.
Please communicate in non-legal terms for those of us who don’t know legal context. Thanks.
What you claim is on page 106 isn’t on that page. It is on page 107.
Page 106:
“As stated at the beginning of this special concurrence,
the certificate of judgment in this case does not disturb the March 2015 orders of this Court that uphold the
constitutionality of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and
the Alabama Marriage Protection Act. For that reason, as
explained above, I concur.”
All this order does is dismiss a request by several private parties to enforce prior orders of the court on some probate judges. The order reinforces the court’s prior orders for judges not to issue homosexual marriage licenses. They stood their ground while dismissing a request that should have been dismissed; private parties cannot make requests on behalf of the government.