http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/06/alabama-same-sex-marriage/78363398/

(Other links can be found on the Internet.)

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore has ordered that same sex marriage is illegal in Alabama. There is one problem: This directly contradicts the US Supreme Court's ruling last Summer that same sex marriage is legal.

To put it another way, the state supreme court has just made a ruling that contradicts the US Supreme Court.

How long until a federal court steps in and tells the state court "No, you can't do this"?

(Also, can anybody think of other good examples of judges defying the rulings of higher courts? For this to count, it has to be intentional; mistakes are not what I am looking for here.)

Edit: Also, I am pretty sure this isn't the first time Roy Moore has made this order.

Edit 2: As someone pointed out later in this thread, the justice's first name is "Roy", not "Ray".

Don't know in US, but in France, some high profile mayors have publickly announced that they would not celebrate gay unions, despite the law ordering them to do so.
Since in France, Mayors are also representatives of the State and are mandated to uphold the law in their town, and since a city-hall marriage is mandatory for a wedding to be legal, that's like a police officer saying on prime-time TV that he will go against some laws when he doesn't like them...

I can understand when the church says "No, we won't allow gay marriage, because of god, kids, man and woman, blah..." (marriage is sacred to them, so let them be), but I don't get why a state should care who or what I'm marrying o.O I really don't get it. Where's the problem to say "Uhm... yeah, sure... Why not?"

Do majority of Alabamians support it? Or are they conservative people?

Don't worry about Ray Moore.

The guy has tried this crap before but fortunately for the civilized world his fan club meets in a phone booth,

Several prominent, and conservative, members of the Alabama State Legislature have already called him out on it and as of this morning he has zero backing.

These wackos are everywhere and always have been, They are just easier to spot now in the age of social media.

It's a political move, mainly.

They know full well the federal government's going to come in an overrule their actions, but that will take some time.

By doing this, they can simultaneously appease their constituents by showing a strong opposition to gay marriage they agree with while further demonizing the Federal government, whom they despise, when they come in to force it.

It's the story of a righteous, home town Christian boy standing up for what he believes in before the big bully of the Government comes in to strike him down! As a man living in Georgia, I can tell you that Southerns eat stories like that up.

omg I love peaches and sweet tea

Wait...we're allowed to discuss things besides irrelevant discussions, game tips, and crude jokes in the GOG forums? You're telling me that people here aren't too drunk for politics? What is this world coming to?!
Edit: Nevermind, didn't see how much the OP got downvoted. The natural balance of the world is restored once more.

In all fairness, this isn't politics, it's human rights.

Very true, but I'll agree with what TheTome56 said, that the move itself is political.

Problem is, as soon as you discuss what human rights should be it becomes a political issue.

As from someone who's never been to the US, is it true that Alabama is a backwards thinking state full of bigotry, racism and I guess fanatical christians? Whenever I see travels tips threads on the net and people mention the US there's always a few people that immediately says:
Whatever you do avoid the Bible Belt, sometimes pointing to Alabama as one of the core issues.

Won't the judge just be impeached?

impeachment is a trial not a removal.
A trial is to determine guilt or innocence.
The judge fully admits he did it, so no trial, no impeachment.

But doesn't impeachment at least suspend him until his guilt / innocence has been established? And no trial; but theoretically, can't he be dismissed now that he has admitted guilt? That's a confession in a proceeding against this guy, and guilt can be established by the courts with it; after which he can legally be dismissed? So what's stoppin anyone?

When Bill Clinton was impeached I don't think he was suspended, but maybe I'm wrong.