I have never seen a clearer example of how "pro-family" is a euphemism for "anti-gay." To read Colorado's Amendment 2 as "pro-family" is logic gymnastics on an olympic-level.
"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing."Personally, I love the irony of Colorado's Amendment 2. They deny that GLBT are a class by defining GLBT people as a class that is exempt from basic protections against discrimination they made it crystal clear that they are a class that is in need of protected class status because of the strong desire of some people to openly discriminate against them as a class.
The fact that Roberts worked with gay groups to help win Romer has not caused an uproar on the right-wing over his nomination. Why? Frankly, I haven't been able to figure that out. Perhaps this guy over at BlogsforBush can shed some light, he explains that even anti-gay conservatives can see that Amendment 2 was an overtly hostile overreach-- he even calls it "un-American." Now the Family Research Council doesn't quite see it that way, they seem to prefer to view the emergence of the story as a smear attempt against one of their own. Not surprising as they and others like them do prefer fitting the facts around things that they believe in and not the other way around.