From the very link you quoted as supporting your stance in favor of Roberts:

"The homosexual activists who were represented were not his clients and he did not sign any briefs or argue any cases for them. While I wish he had declined, I can understand how his minimal involvement in this case happened. Everything I have seen so far about Judge Roberts’ judicial philosophy leads me to believe that as a judge, he would have sided against the homosexual activists in that case."

In the Gay rights case Roberts dealt only with the form and structure of the case. He DID NOT sign any briefs or argue the case. Pro bono work for the law firm that employed him was part of the job. We don't know if Roberts had a choice or what the circumstances might have been which lead him to do that work as Roberts hasn't spoken about it. We don't know what his personal, or professional, opinion was, because he didn't give it.

But when Roberts has given his personal, and professional, opinion he says things like "Quite apart from the problem of appearing to endorse Jackson's androgynous life style" and "Cognoscenti will recognize the allusion to a character in one of Mr. Jackson's popular ballads, a young lass who claims -- falsely, according to the oft-repeated refrain of the singer -- that the singer is the father of her illegitimate child. This may be someone's idea of presidential humor, but it certainly is not mine."

I ponder why Roberts found it in his heart to comment personally about his views on "androgynous" appearing people, illegitimate children, and people associated with such not, in his opinion, being suitable for an award by the President, even though they've done so much for a good cause. ( no I'm not a Jackson fan )

Bush is one of the good old boys and he knows exactly what he's doing and who he's dealing with. There is no way in HELL Bush would appoint someone as supreme court justice if he didn't know exactly who he was appointing.