In reading his dissent he said that the "majority concensus" had always been accepted as a basis for legislating sexual behavior. I would argue that it's really that concensus that is the basis of all our laws and notions of rights.
and that a law that covers only same-sex sodomy is not discriminatory toward homosexuals.
Here I would argue 1) So what if it's discriminatory against homosexuals? It is that behavior that the majority finds immoral. Same thing with pedophilia or incest or what have you. Homosexuals have never been a protected class and should not be. And 2) homosexual sodomy is different from heterosexual sodomy. In fact different states have defined "sodomy" differently. The fact is that the majority finds homosexual acts of sodomy more offensive more against nature, more immoral than they find heterosexual sodomy.
It was a law entirely constructed to stigmatize gay people. It had no other conceivable purpose.
I dissagree. The law was designed to stigmatize homosexual behavior. As such the law sought to prevent people turning into homosexuals in the first place. It may well have been designed as well to stigmatize homosexuals and drive them out of the community. It's no different treatment than we would give pedophiles.
"surely the government does need to provide some kind of reasonable justification for a law expressing "morality," which doesn't just rely on what people have always believed or always assumed"
No it doesn't. There is no other basis for any of our perceived rights and notions of fairness other than the majority consensus. Unless you are willing to recognize a work like the Bible as an authority. In ditching the majority consensus, the court imposed a minority viewpoint of morality with less justification than that with which the legislature had enacted.
But not to stigmatize homosexuals...
Never mind.
Good night.