A civil rights group that lists many conservative organizations as hate groups for opposing gay marrriage has filed an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

The Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center filed the complaint against Moore over an official letter he released declaring his refusal to recognize gay marriages in the state.

Filed Wednesday, the SPLC's complaint was brought before the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama and alleged that "Moore's actions violate Alabama's Canons of Judicial Ethics in numerous and significant regards."

"Chief Justice Roy Moore has improperly commented on pending and impending cases; demonstrated faithlessness to foundational principles of law; and taken affirmative steps to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary," argued the SPLC.

"For all these reasons, we respectfully request that this Judicial Inquiry Commission investigate the allegations in this complaint and recommend that Chief Justice Moore face charges in the Court of the Judiciary."

In a statement released Tuesday, SPLC President Richard Cohen said that while Moore could as private citizen make such declarations his position as chief justice limits his speech on the matter.

"Moore is once again wrapping himself in the Bible and thumbing his nose at the federal courts and federal law," said Cohen.

"As a private citizen, Moore is entitled to his views. But as the chief justice of Alabama, he has a responsibility to recognize the supremacy of federal law and to conform his conduct to the canons of judicial ethics."

SPLC's ethics complaint against Moore came in response to an official letter the Alabama Chief Justice wrote in response to a federal judge striking down the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage last week.

"As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly expressed in the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment,"wrote Moore to Governor Robert Bentley.

"Be advised that I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority."

In June 2006, Alabama voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative meant to add an amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage.

Known as Amendment 774 or the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, it was approved with over 80 percent of the vote.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Callie V. S. Granade ruled the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

Alabama's government has opted to continue defending the constitutional amendment, filing a request to grant a stay until the US Supreme Court renders a decision on the matter.

Earlier this week, Granade granted a two week stay in her decision, rejecting Alabama's request to stay the ruling until the Supreme Court makes a decision.

The two week stay does give Alabama time to file an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which may grant an extended stay on the Granade ruling.

Some observers, reported Fox News, believe that the ruling, even if it takes effect, may have a more limited scope than assumed.

"The Alabama Probate Judges' Association maintains that Friday's ruling applies only to the parties in that case, and that it doesn't require judges to issue marriage licenses to other same-sex couples," noted Fox.

"One probate judge and president of the association, Greg Norris of Monroe County, said probate judges have a duty to issue licenses in accordance with Alabama law, which means they can't issue them to same-sex couples."

Judge Moore is not the only figure to recently sound off on continuing to uphold state level bans on gay marriage despite judicial actions.

Potential GOP presidential candidates including Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have stated their intentions to have an amendment added to the U.S. Constitution allowing for states to decide to have bans.

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. My faith teaches me that, my Christian faith teaches me that," said Jindal in an interview with ABC's "This Week' host George Stephanopoulos.

"If the Supreme Court were to throw out our law, our constitutional amendment -- I hope they wouldn't do that -- if they were to do that, I certainly will support Ted Cruz and others that are talking about making an amendment in the Congress and D.C., a constitutional amendment to allow states to continue to define marriage."

A federal court in Illinois has ordered a community college to allow two activists to distribute anti-homosexuality leaflets on its campus, after the school maintained that the individuals could not distribute such materials that were deemed "inconsistent with the philosophy, goals and mission of the college."

Last January, Wayne Lela and John McCartney sent an application to Waubonsee Community College seeking permission to pass out leaflets on its campus promoting their Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment, a group organized by Lela that advocates that homosexuality is immoral. After submitting the required details about the leaflets to the administration, the administration sent them back a letter denying their request later that month.

Although Lela and McCartney had been previously granted permission in 2003 and 2005 to pass out the promotional items for the organization on the WCC campus, the school's letter of denial in January of 2014 stated that group's message conflicted with the message of the school and that school could not allow them to hand out their leaflets on its campus.

The heterosexual group condemns homosexual behavior and produces publications like, "The Uncensored Truth about Homosexuality." They filed a court motion in late July stating that they had protections under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Lela and McCartney sought a preliminary injunction that would allow them to pass out flyers, no matter how their beliefs contrasted with the beliefs of the college.

Last week, Judge Robert Gentleman of the U.S. District Court issued the injunction ruling that the school does not have the right to discriminate based on the content of speech.

"First Amendment rights cannot be vetoed by listeners who, in disapproving of the message, create a disturbance, thereby silencing the speaker," the judge wrote in his decision. "[The] Defendant's concern that plaintiff's presence on campus may cause a negative student response or disturbance was not a constitutional ground for denying them access."

Because Judge Gentleman felt that the merits of Lela and McCartney's case were strong enough, he had no trouble issuing the preliminary injunction. The injunction states that the school, which is located in Sugar Grove, must allow Lela and McCartney to pass out their leaflets. WCC must submit a reasonable time period to the court for when the two individuals will be allowed to start leafleting on the campus by Jan. 26.

"As has been held numerous times by courts in this district, the loss or impingement of freedoms protected by the First Amendment, 'even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,'" Gentleman wrote. "Given the court's finding that defendant discriminated against plaintiffs based on the content of their speech, the court finds that plaintiffs have a high likelihood of success on the merits."

Lela and McCartney were represented by The Rutherford Institute, a legal group devoted to the protecting civil liberties. President of The Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, said in a statement that university campuses once served as a breeding ground for ideas but now schools are going out of the way to silence those who disagree with the school's opinions.

"We are pleased that the district court recognized the value of free speech, provocative or not, in our society," Whitehead wrote. "If college administrators today were allowed to have their way, college campuses would be little more than breeding grounds for compliant citizens content to speak only when spoken to, on politically correct topics guaranteed not to cause disruption or disagreement, and in Orwellian areas designated as free speech zones."

Assisting the Rutherford Institute in the case were two attorney's from the the Chicago-based Mauck & Baker, LLC., a legal group advocating for the "religious oppressed." Mauck & Baker attorney Whitman Brisky, who helped in the case, said in a statement that he hopes there will be more court cases in the future to help eliminate the censorship by universities and colleges.

"Colleges in America should not be in the business of protecting their students from ideas and suppressing speech," Brisky said. "We need more cases and judicial decisions like this to beat back the increasing levels of censorship on our college campuses."

In December, Marquette University in Wisconsin suspended a tenured professor after he blogged about his opposition to a teaching instructor who prohibited a student from discussing his views against same-sex marriage. It was reported earlier in December that Marquette University had also been training its faculty to report any other faculty member who voices opposition to same-sex marriage as as form of harassment.

New Jersey's Superior Court will soon hear arguments regarding two motions in a lawsuit leveled against a Jewish group that offers therapy to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.

Two motions were filed on behalf of JONAH International in its legal battle against the Montgomery, Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, which is known for labeling faith-based organizatons as "hate groups" due to their opposition to homosexuality and pro-gay agendas.

The SPLC also filed parallel motions against JONAH on behalf of its clients, which Arthur Goldberg, co-director of JONAH, described as "misguided motions [that] are based on the false assumption that homosexuality is a 'normal variant of human sexuality' and that sexual orientation cannot 'change.'"

"All of the plaintiffs' experts merely parrot the plaintiffs' distorted view of the facts and are in essence seeking to improperly use this case to halt all efforts nationwide to help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions," Goldberg told The Christian Post.

JONAH's motion to summary judgment calls for a dismissal of "all of plaintiffs' claims" due to multiple reasons, including plaintiffs signing "informed consent forms," as well as the argument that "the undisputed evidence directly contradicts them," and "the federal and New Jersey constitutional rights of religion, privacy, self-determination and speech bar the claims."

Sometimes called "conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy," sexual orientation change efforts therapy seeks to change the sexual preferences of a given patient from homosexual to heterosexual.

Although mainstream American psychiatry does not endorse SOCE therapy, several organizations across the United States offer it to potential patients.

In November of 2012, the SPLC filed a lawsuit against JONAH on behalf of four men and two parents charging that the SOCE therapy group was guilty of fraud.

On its website, SPLC described Michael Ferguson, et al., v. JONAH, et al. as a "first of its kind" lawsuit against the conversion therapy provider.

"Customers of JONAH's services typically paid a minimum of $100 for weekly individual counseling sessions and another $60 for group therapy sessions," claimed SPLC. "The lawsuit describes sessions that involved clients undressing in front of a mirror and even a group session where young men were instructed to remove their clothing and stand naked in a circle with the counselor [Alan Downing], who was also undressed."

The SPLC lawsuit sought to find JONAH in violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, specifically the measure regarding "ascertainable loss" regarding the therapy procedure.

JONAH is being legally represented in part by the Rancho Santa Fe, California-based Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund.

FCDF President and General Counsel Chuck Limandri denounced the reasoning of the SPLC in a statement released in response to the lawsuit.

"SPLC is grotesquely misusing consumer fraud laws to try to shut down counseling services to Jews with same-sex attraction, and to intimidate other therapists, ministries and service providers across the country,"stated Limandri.

"Individuals with same-sex attraction have a right to seek counseling to live their lives as they choose. It is a matter of self-determination."

Last June, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Peter F. Bariso Jr. ruled that JONAH could be found liable for the costs accrued by the plaintiffs.

"These self-proclaimed experts inflicted grave damage upon our clients, who believed JONAH's claims that it could 'cure' them of being gay," said SPLC Deputy Legal Director David Dinielli in a statement released on the day of the decision.

"These young men were left with guilt, shame and frustration. No amount of money can fix the damage JONAH caused, but recognizing that JONAH can be held accountable for the cost of repairing that damage is an important step."

As the New Jersey Superior Court has processed Ferguson v. JONAH, the state government moved to ban SOCE therapy for minors.

In 2013, New Jersey's General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a law barring the practice for those under the age of 18. Republican Gov. Chris Christie signed the bill into law later that year.

With the passage of the bill, New Jersey joined California as the two states in the country that have barred SOCE therapy for gay minors.

Last year, the nation's capital joined New Jersey and California when the city council voted unanimously in favor of a similar measure.

However, several other states including Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and Virginia have either tabled or voted down similar measures when proposed in their legislatures.

If the Court rejects the defendants' motion for summary judgment, as it had an earlier motion to dismiss, Ferguson v. JONAH will go to trial on April 13.

As the U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday it will review 6th Circuit marriage cases, and thereby decide the future of marriage in America, Christian groups said the people and their elected representatives, and not unelected judges, should decide if states should legally recognize gay marriage.

"The majority of citizens in each state voted that the law should continue to recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman," said Ryan T. Anderson, a fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in a statement after the Supreme Court said the justices will consolidate and hear together four cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Anderson, co-author of the book What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, pointed out that the 6th Circuit ruled last November that these laws do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

The justices will hear two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments in April, followed by a ruling before the term ends in late June, according toUSA Today.

"The people and their elected representatives should deliberate and vote about marriage policy—not unelected judges—and they should make policy that serves the common good by reflecting the truth that marriage is the union of a man and woman," Anderson added, underlining that redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage. "It teaches that mothers and fathers are interchangeable."

Central to the case are two questions. One is whether states are required to license marriages between same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which the Michigan case has to decide. And the second is whether the amendment requires states to recognize such marriages when licensed by other states – which the Ohio and Tennessee cases have to decide.

The Kentucky case includes both.

Gay marriage is legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia. Gay rights groups want all 50 states to legalize same-sex marriage.

"We've reached the moment of truth — the facts are clear, the arguments have been heard by dozens of courts, and now the nine justices of the Supreme Court have an urgent opportunity to guarantee fairness for countless families, once and for all," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, in a statement.

However, Brian S. Brown, president of National Organization for Marriage, said in a statement that it is time for the 50 million Americans who stood for marriage in 30 states, to have their day in court

"We are confident that the Supreme Court has chosen the 6th Circuit case in order to affirm the finding of the Appeals court, just as it did in the cases of Windsor v. United States and Sabelius v. Hobby Lobby," Brown added. "We will be watching this case closely and anticipate an eventual victory for the democratic process, religious liberty, and the cherished institution of marriage which forms the very bedrock of our society."

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, also released a statement, saying this case could potentially transform the cultural landscape of America.

"We should pray for the Court, that they will not seek to redefine marriage," he said. "Marriage was not created by government action, and shouldn't be re-created by government action. Even more than that, we should pray for churches who will know how to articulate and embody a Christian vision of marriage as the one flesh union of a man and a woman in the tumultuous years to come."

Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, said marriage is an institution older than the Constitution. "Marriage is a natural bond that society or religion can only 'solemnize.'"

Alliance Defending Freedom said the people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws.

"Consistent with the Supreme Court's 2013 Windsor decision, which said that 'states have the essential authority to define the marital relation,' the 6th Circuit rightly concluded that the Constitution does not demand that a new view of marriage be judicially imposed on everyone," ADF Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks said in a statement. "We are hopeful the Supreme Court will uphold the freedom of the people to affirm marriage."