I suppose it depends on context. Is the marriage license asking about biological parents or legal parents? I imagine it's mostly about legal parents for things like next of kin, inheritance, and whatnot. But it could be biological to look out for incest / cousin marriage.

On the other hand, if your doctor asks if you have a family history of heart disease, that's solely asking about your biological parents, not adoptive/step-parents.

Strictly speaking, a probate judge refusing to issue all marriage licenses is in compliance with the decision. Alabama law says that probate judges MAY issue marriage license - meaning that probate judges have discretion whether or not they are in the marriage license business. (in other states where the law says officials MUST issue licenses, they don't have that discretion).

Judge Granade's decision says that IF a probate judge issues any marriage licenses at all, then they can't discriminate based on sexual orientation. Her decision doesn't say anything about forcing probate judges to issue marriage licenses in general.

Whether or not Alabama's law giving probate judges discretion violates a fundamental right to marriage is for a completely different lawsuit.

Now that SCOTUS has ruled in our favor, at what point can lawsuits switch from suing officials in their official capacity to their individual capacity?

As I understand it, being sued in their individual capacity allows for punitive monetary damage. However most officials are immune from being sued individually unless they're violating a clear constitutional right. Well now marriage equality has been clearly established by SCOTUS.

So it seems to me that now it's fair game to take as much money as possible from any bigoted clerks who still refuse to issue marriage licenses.

That's not really any different really from any other state. The state has the original license, and they sent you a "marriage certificate". If you lose your certificate, you just ask (and pay for) a certified copy of the marriage certificate. Just like many states won't give you your original birth certificate, just a certified copy of your birth certificate. So Alabama would allow you to request a certified copy of the "marriage contract".

Really, all it seems is that Alabama would be combining the separate "marriage license" and "marriage certificate" into 1 paper - the "marriage contract". And the Full Faith and Credit clause would suggest that if Alabama treats the "marriage contract" as a bona fide marriage, other states would have to as well. I honestly don't see how this bill would specifically hurt same-sex couples.

Is Alabama doing away with marriage altogether? I read the bill, and I honestly don't understand what the problem is. I was married in NY, but as I understand it, the basic marriage process in any state goes like this:

1 - The couple goes to a county clerk, proves their identity, confirms that they're both eligible to get married.
2 - The county clerk gives them a marriage license.
3 - The couple gives the marriage license to a clergy, judge, mayor, etc. and the officiant conducts the wedding ceremony.
4 - The officiant sends to signed marriage license back to the county government.
5 - The county government issues a marriage certificate, proof that the couple is married.

I read through the Alabama bill, and this seems like the new approach.
1 - The couple fills out a marriage contract form. Possibly with a lawyer, or possibly blanks will be available from clergy, judges, mayors, etc.
2 - The officiant conducts the wedding ceremony.
3 - The officiant sends to signed marriage contract to the county government.
4 - The county government keeps the marriage contract on record, and that is the de facto marriage certificate.

Has this really changed? The only issue would be ensuring that other states and the federal government recognize the marriage contract as a legal document proving marriage. But otherwise, in what way is this different. If a judge refuses to conduct the marriage and sign the marriage contract, that's illegal just like it would be for a judge to refuse to sign a valid marriage license. If a county official refuses to file the marriage contract and have the state validate the marriage, that would also be illegal (pending SCOTUS decision) just like it's illegal for the county official to ignore a valid completed marriage license.

So can someone explain how this bill would cause problems for anyone who wanted to get married, even same sex couples?

I think it's an entirely reasonable mistake for the principal to make. The student was planning to come out as gay at graduation, in front of all the students and their families. So even if the student's parents didn't know at that moment, they certainly would know shortly after.

It's a shame she stayed her decision, but at least she got to give the middle finger to 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. However, the choice should be simple. Under the Supremacy Clause, the laws of the United States are “the supreme Law of the Land".”

At least 1 of the signers of this brief (Jeffrey Bennion) was on the TLC show "My Husband's Not Gay", which provided a 1-sided view of men with "same-sex attraction", essentially an infomercial for the Mormon church.

I think it's very likely that the decisions will be announced on the last day. Lots of factors pointing that way:

Oral argument is late - 2nd to last day of the year
The decision won't be unanimous - dissent(s) being passed around to slow the process
There are several possibilities for how the case is decided - marriage as a fundamental right, equal protection, what level of scrutiny, gender or sexual orientation discrimination. That might lead to concurring opinions, which will slow the process down further.
4 cases being consolidated - parts of the opinion might deal with licenses, or recognition, or adoption, etc.

As I read it, the decision gave 2 related reasons Texas would be harmed. First, all state agencies would be required to allow leave for same-sex couples just like all other employers. Second, by doing that, Texas would be forced to break its own laws. Texas would be recognizing a marriage for FMLA purposes while at the same time Texas law says not to recognize that marriage. And anytime a state is forced to disregard its own laws, that's a form of harm.

I'm not agreeing with the decision, just explaining my reading of the decision. Presumably if the 5th Circuit issues a decision striking down the ban, that would implicitly overrule this decision.