I bring these issues up because we have to understand how this particular court is behaving in order to answer the question that is being posed: Will Roberts rule in favor of gay marriage?
I am more inclined to give a simple answer: no. Though I'm not going to dismiss Roberts all together, because there might be something special about this justice that we have not yet been thinking about until the recent Obamacare ruling.
Roberts suffers from epilepsy, and does take certain medications to control his seizures which naturally carry certain psychological side-effects. Some of those side-effects include forgetfulness and mental slowness. The problem here lies that it is the same fascist right wing reactionaries who are now pointing this out to us. And of course, many in the left wing are just beside themselves over this claim that they think is absurd - but it is not.
My ex-boyfriend also suffers from seizures and epilepsy, and the medication that he took did make him act... well, stupid at times. He had periods of forgetfulness and childishness during our relationship and I took it all in stride because I was madly in love with him at the time and I knew, because I was warned by his physician, of the likely side-effects. Just because right wingers say something, doesn't mean it should be automatically discounted. That is what I dislike about the right-left fight is that usually both sides hijack a known fact and use it as political ammunition to antagonize the other side in this tug of war that leads to said fact being distorted and worthless.
But I think that if indeed Roberts was actually suffering from the side-effects, please excuse the shallowness, it is a good thing for the gay community. Maybe he was doped up in meds and that made him rule in favor of Obamacare. If that is the case, then lets hope the Chief Justice takes his medication right when he is about to vote on either of the gay marriage cases. Otherwise expect him to rule in line with the RATS of the court.
The other possible thing that could have happened was that Roberts was 'bullied' into submission. A friend of mine who is an AP reporter and was in attendance at the Supreme Court when the decision was read, describes Roberts as being 'broken down, as though he was being coerced.' Another journalist, who is outside the left-right bubble and follows the Supreme Court closely, told me that he thinks Roberts got a visit from Wall Street financiers who ironically funded his right wing ideology but now are telling him to forget all that and rule in favor of Obamacare, or else.
'These people need to make money. Wall Street needed to get paid, that is why medical insurance stocks sky rocketed the day the ruling was made, and they just went to Roberts' office and paid him a visit and told him how to rule on this' said my friend journalist.
One can argue that because of this 'historic' ruling Roberts had a change of heart of sorts from right wing reactionary ideology to left wing idealism. Such claims I think are too simplistic and maybe too far fetched. We are drawing conclusions that are basically worthless and not set on reality, unless of course somebody can post a video on YouTube when Roberts has another 'episode' from the meds, then maybe there is something to this question that is being posed.
What is missing from the dialogue is the whole notion of right wing reactionary and leftist ideology being played as indicators and filters of how our American justice system should work. What about the constitution and the bill rights? What about just having justices who are neither right wing or left wing but just practical? Because in the end, gay marriage, as in these court cases, deals with practicality and the application of the nation's founding documents. A practical judge or justice would not just rule for gay marriage because he is a left winger or a recently born again liberal justice, but because it is what the constitution mandates as it applies to the rights of gay and lesbian Americans.