There you go, Dave, you finally got around to saying your motivation/plan. You said, "What he's hoping is that his ruling will be appealed to the next higher level; since the 9th Circuit is generally a liberal one, the proponents of anti-gay discrimination daren't go there.". Never mind the existing law or the votes of the people, maneuver a situation to get it in a chosen venue that will let you "end-run" all that.
Mentioning Rosa Parks was cute, an attempt to attach racism to the argument. Let's consider her case. She wanted to bring the segreation laws "to a head", so she got herself arrested as a "test case" and the law came tumbling down. The current situation is an attempt to change the law without a case, test or otherwise. Would such an "end-run" have short circuited the case of Rosa Parks if that routine were in place back then?
Dave, in a way this reminds of the Malvo sniper case, and your displeasure at the idea of letting another state (especially a Southern one) have their day in court for wrongs committed there. You may think that people in some states are your "social inferiors", but they are not, from Rosa Parks to the to the courts of Alabama. The laws and established legal proceedures are for everybody. If there is a "wrong", let it go to the full-blown legal process and if shown to be so, be changed by that process. A good like Parks or a bad like Marvo, let the legal system, and all of it, act.