A federal judge in Mobile on Thursday applied her ruling

to all 68 probate judges in Alabama but delayed it from taking effect until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the gay marriage issue.

The decision to put the ruling on hold contrasts with U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. "Ginny" Granade's refusal to do so when she found Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in January.

In her order Thursday, though, Granade referred to "an imminent decision" by the court in Obergefell v. Hodges, an appeal from an appellate court in Ohio. The high court heard oral arguments in that case last month, and most observers expect a ruling sometime next month.

The end result is that the status quo that has prevailed for months -- since the Alabama Supreme Court in March ordered probate judges to follow the state's marriage law -- will continue a little while longer. Probate judges will not be forced to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

"It certainly is a victory, because in her order on the preliminary injunction, she explains why her order prevails over the Alabama Supreme Court," said Randall Marshall, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents the plaintiffs.

Still, Marshall acknowledged he was disappointed that Granade did not allow her order to take immediate effect.

"We certainly had hoped she would do as did in January," he said.

Attorneys for the probate judges could not immediately be reached for comment. The Attorney General's Office issued a statement late Thursday welcoming Granade's decision to put the ruling on hold.

"We've said from the beginning that the U.S. Supreme Court would have the final say in this matter," the office stated. "Had Judge Granade heeded our request that she stay her order from the start we could have avoided a tremendous amount of chaos and confusion. The good news here is that Judge Granade has finally accepted our advice and issued a stay."

Probate judges have 'roadmap'

Heather Fann, another attorney for the plaintiffs, said Grande's order makes it clear how probate judges should respond if the Supreme Court declares same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional across the country.

"I would think our probate judges now have a roadmap on specifically how to proceed," she said.

The current litigation was before Granade on a request to certify the complaint as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all gay couples wanting to get married in Alabama and naming all probate judges as defendants. Granade agreed on Thursday, and ordered Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis and Baldwin County Probate Judge Tim Russell to defend against the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and their colleagues throughout the state.

Granade rejected an argument raised by Davis that an order from the federal court would put him and other probate judges in the position of having to choose between that order and a conflicting mandate from the Alabama Supreme Court.

"It is true that if this Court grants the preliminary injunction the probate judges will be faced with complying with either Alabama's marriage laws that prohibit same-sex marriage as they have been directed by the Alabama Supreme Court or with complying with the United States Constitution as directed by this Court," Granade wrote. "However, the choice should be simple. Under the Supremacy Clause, the laws of the United States are 'the supreme Law of the Land.'"

She added, "Judge Davis and the other probate judges cannot be held liable for violating Alabama state law when their conduct was required by the United States Constitution."

Granade also noted that probate judges have a third choice: They could follow the example set by Davis and stop issuing marriage licenses to any couple, gay or straight.

David Dinielli, deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, indicated that Granade's ruling would take effect immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the Ohio appeal.

"Judge Granade's ruling is decisive and definitive," he said in a prepared statement. "It ends the chaos and confusion that Attorney General (Luther) Strange and Chief Justice (Roy) Moore have intentionally caused through their reckless rejection of federal constitutional principles."

The judge denied requests by the Alabama Attorney General's Office to give attorneys for Davis more time to make legal arguments on the order, which is known as a preliminary injunction. That injunction was appropriate because the judge already has found the same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, she wrote.

"Because this Court has continued to find that said laws are unconstitutional, the Court also finds that the new named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims," she wrote.

Judge rejects defense arguments

It is unclear why Granade decided to stop her latest order from taking effect until the Supreme Court rules when she rejected a similar request following her January decision. Attorneys for the plaintiffs speculated that it might be because the ruling expected by the high court now is just weeks away.

Fann made it clear she would have preferred the plaintiffs not have to wait even days longer to get married.

"Certainly, all same-sex couples, not just our named plaintiffs, are entitled to equal protection under the law, and we would like that to begin yesterday," she said.

Marshall, the ACLU attorney, said Granade's ruling should remove all doubt that probate judges could be disciplined for ignoring a state Supreme Court that contradicts a federal ruling. Even though the probate judges will not be compelled to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses, he said they could choose to do so based on this ruling.

"It would seem that there is some cover" for probate judges to take that step, Marshall said.

All along, the defendants have argued that the case was better left frozen until the Supreme Court weighs in. By agreeing to put her own order on hold, Granade essentially has given the defense what it wanted.

"There's no doubt that all of the defendants were trying to delay this as far as they could," Marshall said.

Updated at 4:55 p.m. to include comments from Heather Fann and additional information about the ruling. Updated at 5:16 p.m. to include reaction from David Dinielli and additional comments from Fann and Marshall. Updated at 8:47 p.m. to include reaction from the Attorney General's Office.

