For the time being, I will have to set aside my remark concerning Justice Scalia. Even though Scalia opposed Romer v Evans and wrote the minority opinion in dissent, I can't locate any remarks attributed to him that would confirm his desire to not assist in the (pro bono) legal advocacy, and in support of the militant homosexual activists opposing Colorado Amendment 2, as lawyer John Roberts had engaged in at that time.
All I can say is this. At the time that Roberts was first nominated by Bush, within the first 7-10 days, there were several threads on FR discusssing the pros&cons of a Roberts nomination. Most threads supported Roberts nomination. Several didn't support Roberts nomination. I keep picturing in my mind, a statement made by Scalia that I subsequently used to argue my case, that Roberts was wrong to advocate for the plaintiff in Romer v Evans. That being, Scalia would never have assisted in such an advocacy. It went against his conservative principles and morals. Then I remembered this statement by Scalia. It was the closing paragraph of his dissenting minority opinion regarding Romer v Evans. Maybe, just maybe, this was the statement I was thinking of.
Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will. I dissent.
If I find anything that contradicts the above, I will find you and inform you.
That is a great piece of writing by Scalia. I would have preferred him as CJ. Unfortunately I rarely get what I prefer.