"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.
Well for one thing re. Robert's eagnerness to work on this case
...."Walter A. Smith, the attorney in charge of pro bono work at Hogan & Hartson from 1993 to 1997, who worked with Roberts on the Romer case, said Roberts expressed no hesitation at taking the case. He jumped at the opportunity."
Sounds like eagerness to me!
Secondly re. his judicial philosophy, apparently he cared little about his Pro Bono activities to assist in overturning a Colorado State constitutional amendment that resulted in Homer vs Egan now being used to overturn other states marriage amendments such as in the case of Nebraska. He doesn't sound like that much of a strict constitutional-originalist, certainly not like Scalia or Thomas.