There is quite a bit wrong with that statement, where to begin:
1. You don't have to agree with the motives of these people to agree it is good they have the right to try to clarify law through a court of law and to want to uphold their right to clarify the law through the law.
2. Who is the arbiter of "social trolling" versus simply a different opinion? Having a society where there is social trolling, is certainly better than having a society where social trolling is disallowed. What kind of mechanisms would allow that and how could they look any different from despotism? The only answer I suggest is that you would devise a system of law that would end up looking very similar to the system that has given rise to this story.
3. They will lose their case, thereby the law will underline and protect legislation for gay marriage. That seems to me to be a good outcome and a good example of the law working well and in the interests of society and the intent of the legislation that has been passed.
4. There will have been demonstration everyone has recourse to the law but that these people have wasted their money simply through being idiots.