I'm just saying that his statement did not broach what he believed personally on the subject of gay marriage, one way or the other. His statements are neither supportive nor derogatory. He carefully crafted his statement to say exactly what he wanted to say, to keep his written supreme court opinion totally fixed on his view of the constitution and not on personal agenda. But it's wrong for both sides not to realize he is a very public figure and purposefully couches his thoughts, as do most of the Justices. This does no mean that behind closed doors their own biases or agendas don't influence which portion of the constitution they focus on, or how how they decide to interpret the constitution.
I don't claim Roberts is a bigot, but he did get the decision wrong in my estimation (and yours). But his words don't mean he wasn't bigoted, just that he wrote his opinion in a way that did not express personal belief on the subject.
He didn't get the decision "wrong" - he got it different. To him the question the court decided took an activist approach, and he disagrees with judicial activism. For the same reason, he refused to vote against ObamaCare - though unconstitutional, it is something that the people and their legislators can fix.
"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law," he wrote.
"Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today," Roberts wrote. "Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."
"Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority's argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society," Roberts wrote. "If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority's position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law."
Compare to Scalia:
"When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so," he wrote.
"They [the majority] have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a 'fundamental right' overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since."
