[GraniteStateConservative]

Scalia, of course, disagreed. He rejected the contention that there is a constitutional right to privacy. He wrote that disapproval of gay sex by the majority is enough to make it a legitimate state interest. The Texas law, he says, does not discriminate against gay Americans because "men and women, homosexual and heterosexual, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex."

That's like saying you can pass a law against being Jewish because that law applies to everyone, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or atheist.

The author is right. That was a stupid thing for Scalia to state.

[TheDon]

"But what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is not even a legitimate interest of their neighbors, much less of the state."

I completely disagree. The state has a great interest in stopping the spread of AIDs via sodomy.

[Tares]

Article: Scalia, of course, disagreed. He rejected the contention that there is a constitutional right to privacy. He wrote that disapproval of gay sex by the majority is enough to make it a legitimate state interest. The Texas law, he says, does not discriminate against gay Americans because "men and women, homosexual and heterosexual, are all subject to its prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex."

That's like saying you can pass a law against being Jewish because that law applies to everyone, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or atheist.

GraniteStateConservative: The author is right. That was a stupid thing for Scalia to state.

From reading Scalia's dissenting opinion, I gather Scalia would counter that a State cannot pass a law against being Jewish because the freedom of worship is an historically recognized fundamental right as evidenced by the First Amendment to the Constitution. There is no history of sodomy being a recognized right in the US. The history is that it has been outlawed for much of US history. That being the case, citizens of the several States are free to legislate on the issue of sodomy as they see fit, without interference from the Federal gov't. Because of the First Amendment, citizens of the several States are not free to legislate on religion as they see fit

If you haven't read either Justice Kennedy's majority opinion or Scalia's dissent (and the C. Thomas dissent as well), I recommend them. Best to get it straight from the horse's mouth.