You're right. Two different issues. The main issue is willful dis-obedience of the law by one sworn to uphold the law. And I would include the Mass. supremos as violators. Restore the law the other issue will resolve itself. If not, the 'marriage' issue will be the least of our worries before the year is over.
It's important for the President not to turn Newsom into another Martin Luther King. Better to criticize his actions than to take him into custody. It's possible that a court could just order the SF county employees not to follow the mayor on this, then most of them will quit doing so.
And I would include the Mass. supremos as violators.
They're still acting within the color of law, the way the media sees it. The fact that there are four of them, and not one of them, prevents putting a face up there as the "victim" of Mitt Romney. If Mitt's not careful, he'll end up the "bad guy", but if he doesn't order the state's National Guard contingent to fire on the MA SJC, he should be alright. Upon failing to resolve the gay marriage issue, the constitutional issue of lifetime judicial tenure should have been brought up and voted on. Surely, even those who would vote against a gay marriage amendment in MA are teed off at the SJC for making them do so in an election year. That's working within the system, and it keeps the media from picking heroes and villains.