Sorry, I can't agree with him.
While sounding very learned and official he makes a real hash of Roe v. Wade in the beginning that I find astounding.
How can "privacy" possibly override the right of the unborn child to life? Obviously there's no private right to murder, as the idiocy of Roe v. Wade insists. The rights of the unborn child are clearly being violated - in fact its most critical right, the right to life.
But faggotry is different. In homosexual sex no one's rights are being violated. But Scalia seems to think goobermint has a right to prescribe morality exclusive of rights violations.
Milner v. Apfel, 148 F. 3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that legislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality . . . rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms.)
I have a big problem with that.
Decriminalizing homosexual sodomy is quite reasonable to me. State sanction, "hate crime" crapola, anti-discrimination based on sexual preference, etc., etc. is not. This does not have to lead to homosexual "marriage" or celebration of faggotry. All that garbage is repugnant and should not be accepted. It has gone way too far already.