The head of the Alabama court system is using a states' rights argument in his fight to stop same-sex marriage in the state, the Associated Press noted.

After the unions became legal in the Heart of Dixie on Feb. 9, Chief Justice Roy Moore instructed probate judges to defy federal court rulings and refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

"It's my duty to speak up when I see the jurisdiction of our courts being intruded by unlawful federal authority," Moore noted.

Although the AP said the 68-year-old jurist "bristles at the link," his order drew inevitable parallels with George Wallace's 1963 "stand in the schoolhouse door." The Democratic governor tried to prevent the federally mandated desegregation at the University of Alabama, prompting President John F. Kennedy to federalize the Alabama National Guard to enforce the rulings.

Wallace's stunt came nine years after education segregation was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court, but Moore told the news service that such a final decision has not yet been made on the subject of same-sex marriage. A landmark ruling by the nation's highest court is expected later this year.

The Alabama chief justice told Fox News' Chris Wallace that judges who comply with federal orders and issue marriage licenses to gay couples are breaking the state's constitution, the Huffington Post noted.

"What this Harvard professor who is president of our United States does not understand is that a trial court's decision on the constitutionality of a federal question is just that -- it's an opinion," Moore said in reference to President Barack Obama.

He insisted that his instructions were an attempt to "(obey) the First Amendment ... which does not prohibit the acknowledgement of God."

"When federal courts start changing our Constitution by defining words that are not even there -- like 'marriage' -- they're going to do the same thing with 'family' in the future," Moore said.

But many legal scholars question the arguments of Moore and other states' rights advocates, the AP noted. Ruthann Robson, a law professor at the City University of New York, said a federal district court ruling should be considered the law of the state unless overruled or contradicted.

"If what Moore says is true, then no federal court could ever hold a state law, regulation or policy unconstitutional," Robson argued.