Over at the online home of the Senate Democratic Caucus, there's a place to submit questions you'd like to ask John G. Roberts. Some of the posters at Free Republic seem to have one in mind: What does that "G" stand for, anyway?
Wonkette joked about Roberts' heterosexual bona fides a couple of weeks ago: He went to an all-boys school! He wrestled! He played Peppermint Patty in a production of "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown"! But with the revelation today that Roberts helped gay rights activists persuade the Supreme Court to overturn Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2 in the 1990s, some voices on the right seem to be taking the question of Roberts' sexual orientation a little more seriously: Roberts came to the aid of gay rights activists ... he didn't get married until he was 41 ... his children are adopted ... could it be?
"This is really upsetting news," writes a Free Republic poster identified as lady lawyer. "Roberts is a guy who has been positioning himself for power all of his life. Is the late-acquired wife just part of that positioning?" L.N. Smithee chimes in: "I think lady lawyer has a significant concern." Smithee seems troubled that Roberts didn't list the Colorado case in his response to the Senate Judiciary Committee's question about pro bono work he has done. "Why was this not on his CV?" Smithee asks. "Why did he attempt to hide this?"
To be fair, lady lawyer allows that it's "more than possible" that Roberts is "not gay," even as she says it's reasonable to posit the question. "I think it is important if anyone in a position of power has an agenda to overturn all traditional morality to accommodate his or her favorite perversion," she writes. And most of the Freepers do seem more concerned that Roberts might be sympathetic to homosexuals than afraid that he is one. "A good lawyer does not work for free in a landmark case to advance gay rights," writes lawdude. "A liberal RAT does." A poster called jtminton speaks for a lot of his conservative compatriots: "If this guy's pro-gay," he writes, "I don't want him anywhere near the Supreme Court."
Shares