"....First, as to its eminent reasonableness. The Court's opinion contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of "animus" or "animosity" toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as Unamerican. Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals--and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of "animus" at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers. The Colorado amendment does not, to speak entirely precisely, prohibit giving favored status to people who are homosexuals; they can be favored for many reasons--for example, because they are senior citizens or members of racial minorities. But it prohibits giving them favored status because of their homosexual conduct--that is, it prohibits favored status for homosexuality." From Justice Scalia's dissent in Romer
And I mean it when say you're entitled to your opinion but IMBCO, the facts don't accord with your opinion. :-}
And I agree with Justice Scalia. But it is a dissent. Romer did not overrule Bowers, de facto or otherwise. Sodomy laws still existed and were enforced as much as ever (i.e. hardly ever). Did it help to set the table for Lawrence? I guess so. Is that Roberts' fault or does he deserve blame? No. Does it give any indication about his judicial philolophy? No.
Divide and conquer.