I'm aware of activist judges. And I'm also aware of ugly divorces. And I'm further aware of the all-too-common tactic of taking the trial to the media. And I'm aware of the tendency of advocacy lawyers to make inflammatory claims, especially when they're taking the trial to the media. And (this happened to my brother), I've learned that "Christian" divorce lawyers can be worse than the normal lot.
Beyond that, rather than fall for the spin put out by lady's hired gun lawyers, I actually paid attention to, and tried to understand, what little has been reported of what the judge actually said.
Now, it's possible that the judge is a persecutor -- but I really, really doubt it. It's highly unlikely that he would have invented such a ruling out of whole cloth.
Since we can not prove your assumptions or mine based on the article at hand, I think we must at least criticize the judge for politicizing and "Christianizing" his ruling.
The judge didn't politicize it, nor did he take it to the media. That little job was done by Ms. Clark's lawyers -- which (as noted above) is a big reason why I do not trust anything they say about this case.
I was attempting to keep our comments to what we know about the ruling. The judge used the term "homophobic." That is a meaningless political term. It is certainly not a legal term. Therefore, the judge politicized his ruling - i.e. he made it a political one not a legal one.
Shalom.