You wrote: "Where did I imply clergy may marry after they are ordained?"
Did you write this: "Latin Rite Catholic clergy are the only Catholic clergy forbidden to marry though this is in violation of the rulings of the Ecumenical Council on married clergy (though I forget which one)." If you did, then haven't you answered your own question?
"The above article is about the Orthodox position of marriage vs the Latin position (or as I like to call them the Frankish-Latin rite to mark the development of the Latin church after the Popes turned to the Franks for protection)."
Wow, just get done reading Romanides huh? How about calling it what it is? It is the Roman Church. Why not call it the Roman Church? Do you want us to start referring to the Greek Orthodox Church as "Muslim-Greek rite" church? After all, didn't some Greek Orthodox embrace iconclasm after the rise of iconoclastic Islam? Would that be fair? No, not really. Leo the Isaurian may have made his choices in part because of Islam, but Islam didn't change church teaching. The Franks didn't change church teaching either.
By the way - the Orthodox Church also considers itself to be Roman. 'Orthodoxy and Romiosini'.
The Franks did change church teaching - see Filioque.
Sometimes, the chosen past turned out to be less than usable. An illustrative example of this is the sacramentary that Charlemagne requested and received from Pope Hadrian at the end of the eighth century. This text, the so-called Gregorian sacramentary, although certainly hailing from Rome, did not fulfill the liturgical needs of the Franks, nor meet their expectations of what a Roman liturgical book should be. Benedict of Aniane, one of Charlemagne’s monastic advisors and perhaps the court’s liturgical expert, revised the sacramentary, adding, modifying, and deleting material to produce a book that could be promulgated throughout the empire. In other words, Benedict took a preexisting tradition – in this case, a Roman text – and changed it to produce a new text and a new kind of tradition.6 At other times, a usable past simply did not exist. Occasionally, there was insufficient historical information available to reformers, so that they were forced to turn to their own devices, but, more often, men and women in the early Middle Ages could face problems and situations for which the past did not supply appropriate analogues. To deal with this sort of situation, a past had to be created, a history invented, a tradition assembled. This effort could not be undertaken lightly: it demanded all the scholarly resources, intellectual verve, and spiritual discretion that a reformer might possess. The act of creation itself would often involve a sort of cobbling together of bits of the past gathered here and there, a bundling of whatever information and knowledge might be available, and a fitting of this newly made historical bricolage into a framework that the writers of the original sources might not have recognized.