[afnamvet]

Rush's actual concern was for the underlying legal point that Roberts' work undermined: he fought to judicially overturn a ballot initiative voted on and approved by the citizens. That is exactly the kind of judicial activism true conservatives don't want to see on any court, much less the Supreme Court, whether or not it has anything to do with homosexuality.

This is the underlying issue. Would this qualify as a red flag? IMHO,yes it would.

[NonValueAdded]

I disagree ... a simple majority ballot initiative is not an end run around the Constitution. Supporting such a move is what I'd call activism. Support the petition pertained to an enumerated right, such as the second amendment ... if a majority of lily-livered liberals in a small blue enclave passed an initiative petition to confiscate all firearms, the 2nd amendment be damned, would it be judicial activism to say, "sorry, you can't do that in that manner?" No, it would be upholding the constitution in classic strict-constructionist tradition. Don't play the Slime's game. This is exactly how they want to turn us against Roberts. Don't let the RATs define your terms! It isn't pro-gay to overturn a wrongly decided law that would open up all sorts of slippery-slope problems later on. Watch the bigger picture.