What do you mean he didn't accept the Pro Bono case to assist in Homer vs Evan, to overturn the Colorado state amendment. Roberts not only accepted it, he accepted it eagerly! If he was a truly principled conservative and viewed homosexuality/gay/lesbians as a moral aberration, I don't think he would have accepted this case at all.
Roberts also has stated that he views Roe vs Wade as the settled law of the land (not just as an appellate nominee, but recently as well) and would not look to overturn precedent. Of course for liberal/activists any conservative predendent can be overturned at will... just don't mess with liberal/activist precedents.
In my opinion Roberts is a far cry from constitutional-originalists such as Scalia and Thomas. So far his comments, his pro bono work, his cozying up to the lunatic left wing fringe, show him to be more aligned with O'Conner-Kennedy-Souter than the conservative views of Scalia and Thomas. 7 of the last 10 Republican SCOTUS appointees have been moderate-liberal activists, including 4 currently on the bench. Not a real good track record. President Bush could have (and should have) named a staunchly, principled conservative. Not a pragmatic moderate like Roberts. Unfortunately we won't know for sure until AFTER he is on the Court and we will see which way his decisions fall. I predict he will be a moderate-liberal appointee.... conservative on business issues and liberal on abortion - gay rights & marriage - 10 commandments - social & culteral issues. It will be too late then.
"Roberts not only accepted it, he accepted it eagerly!"
Where'd you get this from? Do you think it helps your point to make up something about his state of mind that you really have no idea about?
"If he was a truly principled conservative and viewed homosexuality/gay/lesbians as a moral aberration, I don't think he would have accepted this case at all."
This gets confused so many times because a "conservative philosophy" and a "conservative judicial philosophy" are used interchangeably, when they're different. I don't care what his personal opinions are about gays. I care what he thinks, as a judge, about the original intent of laws and the Constitution. His serving as an advocate for someone reveals nothing about his judicial philosophy. His performance as a judge reveals all you need to know about his judicial philosophy. Read the french fry case and you might be more reassured.