Roberts is not that bad

According to the New York Times, John Roberts advised gay rights activists in 1996. He helped the side of gay rights on Romer vs. Evans, the 1996 gay rights case that began the shift toward more judicial protection of gay rights, which was made complete in 2003's Lawrence vs. Texas. More precisely, he gave the plaintiffs' chief lawyer pro bono advice on how to argue in such a way that it would convince conservatives.

Subject to the caveat that pro bono advice is weaker evidence than judging the case, Roberts' support for gay rights is indicative of how weak the religious right really is. The NYTimes article quotes James Dobson as strongly disapproving of his overall record. And other blogs, such as Majikthise, have dealt with how he is more of a corporatist than a social conservative. It's one thing to oppose the Lemon test and support slightly stronger restrictions on abortion; it's a whole other thing to want to force women to be stay at home moms, criminalize abortion and contraception, turn homosexuals into second-class citizens, and destroy separation of church and state.

Bush nominated him knowing that he is not much of a social conservative. James Dobson hates him; he isn't the candidate of the religious right. Despite claims of victory for social conservatives, Bush ignored them at the moment of truth. The only explanation for that that I can think of is that the religious right has painted itself into irrelevance by being so reliably partisan. When a group so consistently votes for one party, the party it votes for can get away with only giving it scraps; the same process happens inside the Democratic Party, which takes blacks' votes for granted.