How did the Judge come to his conclusion? Was it just an attempt to crewl actual freedom from religion?

This effort will never gain traction for the simple reason that way too many churches conduct, recognize and/or bless same sex unions. Secular Humanism cannot be singled out here, as houses of worship and their clergy in many states were performing same sex marriages before the eventual Supreme Court ruling.

As if they had a problem with a national religion...

Seriously. Same sex marriage isn't a religion it's personal freedom of choice. Dosent you're United States constitution have something in it like liberty and freedom for all. If so I'd take that to encompass all whether they be. White, black, Hispanic, Catholic, hindu, Jewish, Muslim, tall, thin, fat, skinny, ugly, gorgeous, straight, gay, lesbian, transgender, man, woman or child. Please if any of these terms are wrong forgive me but my meaning is crystal clear if I'm right and I usually am if the constitution state the above in whatever wording then bitching about some random law from a bygone era is just poppycock.

So because people don't believe in their bullshit fairytale, it's a religion? Lol

That's right up there with the most asinine crap I've ever heard. Why is their reasoning for being moral any better than anyone who doesn't believe in their fairytale?