Chief Justice Roy Moore conceded Monday that the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry sets a precedent.

A precedent is a decision in law that is authoritative.

"I'm not disputing that the Supreme Court ruling is not a precedent for the lower courts. But I am saying that it's not in accordance with the Constitution," said Moore, 68, who has been a staunch and sometimes harsh opponent of same-sex marriage.

But when asked repeatedly if the ruling by the nation's highest court meant that same sex marriage is now the law of the nation and of Alabama, Moore shook his head in disagreement.

"The law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. What we are talking about here is an interpretation of the Constitution."

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling Monday, June 29, 2015, in Montgomery, Ala. (Julie Bennett/jbennett@al.com)

And Moore made plain, it is an interpretation that he could not disagree with more.

"In the Dred Scott case (1856 U.S. Supreme Court ruling) the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were property, not citizens of the U.S.," said Moore of the famous case. "That was the interpretation of the majority of the court. Were they right? Of course not."

Moore said it took a bloody Civil War and constitutional amendments to eventually reverse the Scott case.

Asked if he was saying it might take a second civil war to reverse the court's ruling on same sex marriage, Moore bristled a little.

"I hope not. I'm not calling for anything like that," Moore said.

But Moore said the high court ruling runs against thousands of years of accepted understanding of what marriage is and represents an affront to Alabamians and Americans who deeply believe that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.

"Judges interpret the Constitution and if you interpret it as Justice Kennedy did (and four other justices) then same sex marriage is constitutional. But if you interpret it as justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas did, it is not constitutional," Moore said. "And not only is it not constitutional...it contradicts the Constitution and as Justice Thomas said it is at odds with the Constitution and the principles on which this nation were founded."

Reminded that a majority of the court disagreed and found same sex marriage legal, Moore took a breath and said: "I agree with the dissenters."

Asked if as the state's chief justice he would follow and enforce the law, Moore snapped that judges do not enforce the law. Asked if he expected probate judges and other judges and state officials to obey the law, Moore used examples of men who were judged to have followed wrong and immoral laws and orders in Germany during World War II.

"Could I do this if I were in Nuremberg (war crimes trials after WW II) say that I was following the orders of the highest authority to kill Jews?... Could I say I was ordered to do so?

Told that trial was about killing human beings, not gay marriage, Moore asked: "Is there a difference?"

Moore repeatedly sidestepped directly answering if he would advise probate judges and state officials to follow the ruling in the case.

"I have a right as a judge to interpret the constitution just as every judge does," said Moore. "I can dissent just as justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas and I will dissent because a court can't make you think that same-sex marriage is in the Constitution when it is not. They can't make you think it's a fundamental right...when they quoted Loving vs. Virginia which says the right to marry is a pursuit of happiness's; pursuit of happiness is given by God under our law."

Moore said he disagreed with Gov. Robert Bentley's public statement that the issue has been decided and that Alabama will obey the law of the land.

"The law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. I would advise the governor to call me if he wants to know about the law," said Moore, who added that he has had no contact with Bentley.

Asked if probate judges have no choice now but to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Moore grimaced.

"You're asking me should probate judges obey. I'm telling you it (the U.S. Supreme Court) has issued a ruling that has precedent over the courts of Alabama. But their interpretation of the Constitution is their interpretation. But nothing can conflict with a sworn officer's oath to the Constitution."