The Alabama Supreme Court late Friday agreed to consider a petition by two groups seeking a halt to the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses by state probate judges.

Meanwhile another group, which supports same-sex unions, also asked justices Friday to toss out the petition. And one Alabama Supreme Court justice wrote he believes an order halting the issuance of licenses could inject more confusion and, possibly, subject more probate judge to federal lawsuits.

In a 6-2 decision issued late Friday, the Alabama Supreme Court set up a schedule next week for the different sides to file their answers and briefs on the request by the Alabama Policy Institute and Alabama Citizens Action Program. The court, however, did not say whether it would hold a hearing for oral arguments before responding to the petition.

The order stated the briefs by probate judges should address issues raised by the petition, including whether the state Supreme Court even has jurisdiction to hear the petition.

Answers and briefs by probate judges are to be filed by 5 p.m. Feb. 18 and then ALCAP and API will have a chance to respond by 5 p.m. Feb. 20.

API and ALCAP, which both oppose gay marriage, on Wednesday filed their emergency petition for a writ of mandamus declaring the state's ban on same-sex unions is still in force and to halt any probate judge from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

ALCAP and API name those county probate judges who have begun issuing licenses to same-sex couples in response to U.S. District Court Judge Callie Granade's order declaring Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

"Her (Judge Granade's) order has caused a great deal of confusion and judges don't know what to do," Eric Johnston, an attorney for the API and ALCAP, said Friday night.

At least two probate judges who have been issuing the licenses, Alan King in Jefferson County and Steven L. Reed in Montgomery County, have filed appearances in the case so they can respond to the petition, Johnston said.

Not all probate judges have to respond, Johnston said, but if the Alabama Supreme Court rules and issues a writ of mandamus it would apply to all.

"It would be for the entire state until a court of competent jurisdiction rules," Johnston said. "The only court of competent jurisdiction that could reverse that is the U.S. Supreme Court."

The U.S. Supreme Court is to hear arguments in April over whether same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite-sex couples to marry. The court's ruling would then be expected in June.

"Our position is not really adversarial with the (probate) judges," Johnston said. "We want the (Alabama) Supreme Court to say what we are going to do in Alabama until the U.S. Supreme Court issues their opinion in June. ... We just want the status quo."

"It's only four months until June. There's no reason to put everyone through this confusion," Johnston said.

Two Alabama Supreme Court justices disagreed with their colleagues on the decision to entertain ALCAP and API's petition.

"Before us is an unprecedented attempt to control several probate courts by means of a rare original petition seeking a writ of mandamus issued by this Court," Justice Greg Shaw wrote. "This Court in the past has refused to hear this kind of petition."

Shaw wrote that in order to grant ALCAP and API's request, the state supreme court "will have to conclude that a probate court is forbidden from following an Alabama federal district court's ruling on the constitutionality of the ministerial acts a probate court performs, which ruling both a federal appellate court (U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals) and the Supreme Court of the United States have refused to stay pending appeal."

Shaw states that the petition "does not provide an adequate foundation for reaching such a conclusion."

While he has procedural problems with the petition, Shaw wrote that he is not expressing an opinion as to the "correctness" of the federal judge's ruling but instead has another concern.

"I would urge restraint and would urge this court not to interject more confusion into what is already a very confusing situation, which confusion could result in embroiling more probate judges in federal litigation," Shaw wrote.

Justice James Allen Main was the other member of the court to dissent. He wrote that his concerns were with the procedural aspects of the petition, and he expresses no opinion on the issues.

Chief Justice Roy Moore, who has been the most outspoken in advising probate judges not to issue same-sex licenses, was the only justice not listed as taking part in Friday's decision.

Also Friday, lawyers representing Equality Alabama, a group that supports same-sex marriage, filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief urging the Alabama Supreme Court to dismiss the petition.

The brief was filed on behalf of Equality Alabama by lawyers from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU of Alabama Foundation, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

In its brief, Equality Alabama states that probate judges in Alabama should follow the law by continuing to issue marriage licenses to all couples. The brief argues that these two private organizations do not have the jurisdiction in the first place to represent the state of Alabama - and that they have not been harmed in any way by the probate judges' actions this week.

"This request before the Alabama Supreme Court is nothing but an attempt at delaying the happiness that all families deserve - a last-ditch, failing effort to stand in the way of the love we've seen in this historic week," Equality Alabama chairman Ben Cooper said in a prepared statement. "The petition should be dismissed, and all probate judges in every corner of the state should follow the law."

AL.com reporter Kelsey Stein contributed to this story