The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Family Research Council (FRC) on Wednesday applauded an Alabama Supreme Court ruling ordering judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

Two conservative groups, the Alabama Policy Institute and the Alabama Citizens Action Program, turned to the state's highest court after a federal judge struck down the state's ban on gay marriage last month.

In its 148-page ruling, the court concluded that “probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to” state law.

(Related: Alabama Supreme Court orders judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.)

According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest LGBT rights advocate, none of Alabama's 67 counties were issuing such licenses on Wednesday.

“We praise the justices of the Alabama Supreme Court who have ruled in overwhelming fashion that the laws of Alabama defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman must be followed by state officials,” NOM President Brian Brown said in a blog post. “A single federal judge does not have the authority to force a state to redefine marriage and it's high time that out of control judges were put in their place. We call on other states to similarly order their state's officials to enforce state marriage laws.”

FRC President Tony Perkins called the ruling “refreshing.”

“I applaud the Alabama Justices in their wise decision respecting the freedom of Alabama’s voters to uphold natural marriage,” Perkins said in an emailed statement. “In a refreshing change, Alabama's Supreme Court is using the law to determine their actions – not a politically motivated opinion of a lower court federal judge.”

“[T]he Alabama Supreme Court reflects where the American people really are on the issue – and it is respecting the freedom of the voters to uphold natural marriage,” he added.

University of Alabama law professor Ronald Krotoszynski told the AP that while Alabama's highest court has the authority to undermine a federal judge's ruling, it was an unorthodox move.

“Does the [Alabama] court have the power to do this? Yes,” he said. “Was it wise for the court to exercise its power this way? I'd say no. … This is just not a standard kind of move in the inter-relationship between state and federal courts.”