I have not really read the marriage sspx deal with rome details.  When you hear it from the sspx angle, it doesn't sound that bad.  But, if you listen from the NO angle, it does.  This guy from catholic answers minute 1:45 says that the ordinary witness is a priest from the NO diocese.  And, if one is not available, the NO bishop should grant the sspx priest faculties to be a witness.  That sounds like a bad deal if you ask me.  Like I said, I have not read the details, but that doesn't sound acceptable if that is the case.  But, with everything coming out of rome, there is probably language that says the contrary.  And, also, this catholicanswers guy talks about how you can fulfill your sunday obligation at an sspx mass if you only go there out of love for the latin mass, but not out of love for the dissent of vatican 2.  Basically, "yeah you can go to the sspx without sin if you are going to be a traditional modernist while there".  But, if you are doctrinal traditionalist, you cannot fulfill you sunday obligation at an sspx mass.  

Catholic Answers should be sued for their "FAIL" in Truth in Advertising.

You mean because they say they're "Catholic" and have any "Answers"?

Both.  Because they advertise they have Catholic answers.   

What alarmed me about his was the use of the word "ordinary" witness when it comes to the NO priest.  I didn't recall that from reading into it before.  I thought that the NO priest was just going to be present while the sspx priest "witnessed" or said the prayer/conducted the ceremony and so on.  But, if the NO is the "ordinary", that seems to me it means in these new marriages, the NO priest is #1 in the ceremony, and the sspx priest is #2, if #2 has any meaning at all.  

What alarmed me about his was the use of the word "ordinary" witness when it comes to the NO priest.  I didn't recall that from reading into it before.  I thought that the NO priest was just going to be present while the sspx priest "witnessed" or said the prayer/conducted the ceremony and so on.  But, if the NO is the "ordinary", that seems to me it means in these new marriages, the NO priest is #1 in the ceremony, and the sspx priest is #2, if #2 has any meaning at all.  

.
Please keep in mind that Newchurch is really big on changing the meaning of words (following the lead of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who died outside the Church as a public heretic, and was therefore refused burial in a Catholic cemetery). 
.
We used to say the Ordinary of the Mass is the part that is generally the same throughout the year, while the propers are the parts that change from day to day in most cases. Along comes the Bugnini Revolution under Paul VI and suddenly there's no more Ordinary of the Mass but instead there is "Ordinary Time" which took the place of Sundays after Pentecost, among others.
.
One use of "Ordinary" that was retained is the Ordinary of a diocese, which refers to the local bishop.
.
Then they dreamed up "The Ordinary Rite" which they pinned on the Novus Ordo Newmass. And of course they pinned "Extraordinary Rite" on the previously exclusive Traditional Latin Mass. But it's all "the same" according to the hermeneutic of continuity.
.
Therefore, who knows what they're really talking about anymore when they say "ordinary?" 
Is it whatever the Novus Ordo priest says it is, presuming he shows up?
Is it whatever gets approved by the local bishop, "legitimately established (SC 22.2)?"
Is it whatever Newrome wants it to be? 
.

the ordinary witness is a priest from the NO diocese.  And, if one is not available, the NO bishop should grant the sspx priest faculties to be a witness.  

This is what comes from the policy of the SSPX of not upsetting the Vatican II church hierarchy. Here you have a doubtfully consecrated bishop sending a doubtfully ordained priest,  possible two laymen, to witness a marriage by a valid priest. Everything is upside down

Here's the exact quote from the letter granting these permissions:
(Note, option "B" is to be used only when option "A" is not possible.)

Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.

Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant docuмents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible.

This is what comes from the policy of the SSPX of not upsetting the Vatican II church hierarchy. Here you have a doubtfully consecrated bishop sending a doubtfully ordained priest,  possible two laymen, to witness a marriage by a valid priest. Everything is upside down

Except according to the Council of Trent, SSPX marriages would be invalid otherwise (that is, if you accept the Novus Ordo hierarchy as legitimate):
“Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest or of another priest authorized by the parish priest or by the ordinary and in the presence of two or three witnesses, the holy council renders absolutely incapable of thus contracting marriage and declares such contracts invalid and null, as by the present decree it invalidates and annuls them. ”