Isn't Roberts a packer?
I don't know if it's Roberts, but the homosexuals have got an edge on the Court somewhere ever since Burger left and took his opinion (that States can criminalize homosexual conduct) in Bowers vs. Hardwick (1986), with him ..... remember, that was a very recent opinion and precedent. And Anthony Kennedy overturned it in 2003 without even referring to it, by the expedient of simply opinionating de novo as if in a vacuum and finding for the homosexuals.
In short, we are seeing a lot of crooked jurisprudence and eyes-wide-shut rationalization from the Court recently, and a rejuvenation of legal positivism. The Court as a whole is thoroughly committed to a course of finding for the homosexuals right down the line, no matter the issue: the homosexual lobby is the new do-no-wrong darling "minority".
And I think several justices have been jonesing to deliver for the girls for a long, long time.
Remember this factoid: As 600 homosexual volunteer attorneys relentlessly forum-shopped case after case after case all through the 1980's and 1990's , the case that would become the Lawrence case was fought at the district and appeals-court level in Texas once before, in 1981, before a judge who died of unascertainable causes [WaPo: causes not reported] -- Jerry Buchmeyer, a Carter appointee. This was before Lambda got squashed by Bowers and the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case. [See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Wade ]
They forum-shop, they compromise judges (the chief judge of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that decreed homosexual "marriage" for the State of Massachusetts was vigorously blandished and courted by Lambda and other gay-rights organizations and publicly honored and praised by them while sitting on their case before her, led by a gay-rights lawyer named Mary Bonauto), and they are shameless in seeking victory by any means at all.
They're liberals. What did we expect? They don't believe in principles or rules, only in their agenda.