Matt Stinson basically sums up everything that I previously wrote regarding gay marriage:

I’m fairly agnostic on the issue myself, but I recognize that it’s become a major battle in the culture wars — a battle that will prove to be damaging and caustic to all sides, just like Roe. Because I disapprove of the notion of sweeping social reorganization following a court case, I’m in favor of pure federalism on this issue (see related posts here, here, here, and here), meaning that states should be able to pass whatever laws they want regarding marriage, but their laws should not apply to other states or the federal government.

Such an approach would let states and the federal government move at different speeds on extending rights to gay couples, and thus prevent the kind of sudden anti-gay backlash that would occur if California, Massachusetts, Hawaii or the like passed a gay marriage law, and a married gay couple subsequently relocated to a conservative state for the purpose of forcing a full faith and credit clause challenge to get their marriage recognized nationally. (And if Andrew Sullivan doesn’t recognize that gay rights activists are planning just that sort of tactic, he’s even more removed from the gay movement than Atrios thinks.)

I agree, that if there is an eeeeeeeviiiiillllllllll honershexshul agenda (“Yes there is! There is! They’re out to get your Balllllllls!”) going on, that the most logical way to take advatage of how laws propagate through the nation is exactly what Matt Stinson has laid out: get hitched in Cali, move to, oh, Wyoming, and force the hand of the state. It’s what Doc and a few have recognized before: the rudiments of sorting things out as a non-existent marriage in one state that is extant in another, the costs of wading through the beaurocratic horror that this may possibly cause, would be greater than if the Wyoming courts simply recognized them in the first place.

Highjacking of the legislative process? Perhaps. Legal? Currently, betcha.