Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou View Post
Considering that he'd originally wanted to air the whole proceeding on YouTube, it really sounds like he was more interested in a show trial than a fair hearing of both sides.
From what little I've read, it looks as though the defendants didn't really show up, hence the one-sided ruling. They promised something like twenty-two specific harms that same-sex marriage caused; they provided none. They promised expert testimony; they provided none. In judicial terms it was a no-show shut-out.

We have an adversarial system of justice. What to do when one team throws the game?