He figures - now is the time with the conservative leaning of the court vs. what may occur within the next 4-8 years with Obama's choices in the inevitable future of appointees. If the case goes to the Supreme Court now, the court might actually say 'no same sex marriage' and he wins in theory, barring a revisit of the issue on another technicality in 6-8 years.
If the Supreme Court says 'ok to same sex marriage' then he feels the momentum will be stronger now than in 6-8 years to try to have the states support a Constitutional amendment preventing recognition, and change the Constitution entirely to end it, undoing every state's current same-sex marriages.
If I were Barack Obama (and I'm not

) I would ask the Congress if would pass a national domestic partnership law which would grant registered couples the legal tax benefits given anyone who is married. Thus, the Right Wingers will be forced into a more right-wing corner opposing something that most people support currently - domestic partner status. Plus it slowly moves the ball forward on the field. Doing nothing right now is probably not a good idea for the Obama administration as it only lets others get momentum because you are reacting to their actions.
The Right Wing 'impinge' arguments are that they say they have a right to discriminate against people who they feel are not worthy of god's laws of marriage, and shouldn't be told otherwise. For instance, I'm guessing the doctor in the video might offer 'I don't want a Lesbian couple to have a baby, and I should be able to say no to performing medical services that would help them have a baby - basically discriminate based on her religious beliefs in a medical environment. If you carry that forward, a pharmacist with 'religious beliefs' would say 'I don't want to provide birth control to anyone - it is against my religion' or a surgeon says 'I believe people who lie down with the same sex are an abomination, so I shouldn't have to treat ANY of their health issues as I think they are not worthy of living.' It is a horrific point of view for a doctor to take, but falls under that premise.
Of course what is being talked about has nothing to do with any church but the civil rights of marriage. Churches have long been able to not perform ceremonies for even people who are not members of a specific church, or not a part of the denomination, etc. It's a lie, but they are throwing everything at the wall to see what might stick. It worked in California and it is the 'fear factor' they are after - plain and simple.
'Good churchgoing folk' used to do this with divorced women in their churches - they would ostracized them and prevent them from getting involved with 'the rest of church' activities - afterall, divorce is a sin. It is sad, but we've come a long way and the next generation does not even care - so this fellah wants to take action before the influences of the younger generation start to affect laws and rulings.