For those interested in the legal strategies in play on this case, I thought this piece did a pretty good job of presenting an objective summary of where we currently stand:
In Alabama, judges fight one-on-one over gay marriage
Thus far, only one probate judge has been ordered to issue licenses to same-sex couples - well, not exactly. The judge has prohibited him from enforcing the Alabama law restricting licenses to one man/one woman couples*, so technically he could refuse licenses altogether and not violate this particular order. The judge could also appeal to the circuit court, and argue that the law doesn't apply because district court rulings are not binding on state courts. While true, that argument is probably a losing one because in issuing licenses, probate judges are fulfilling an administrative or executive function (making the argument irrelevant).
Davis did not persue either of those strategies, and did what many had hoped - began issuing licenses to everyone. Many expected the rest would fall in line - and a lot of judges did - but there are still a significant number of holdouts.
The piece claims this was a "test case" and that Granade avoided a headline by forcing the order on the entire judiciary. I have yet to hear a good legal argument that even makes that possible given that most of these judges are outside her jurisdiction.
Finally, in an unexpected move, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered several judges who are issuing licenses to same-sex couples to respond to a petition requesting that the court order these probate judges to cease and desist in issuing licenses to same-sex couples, claiming that the district ruling does not automatically validate same -sex marriage across the state. Don't know that it's worth delving too deeply in the legal arguments here, because it's likely the case will be thrown out due to plaintiffs lack of standing. Then again, I didn't think it would even get this far.
*95% sure, but can't access right now, so am unable to verify