And if the case loses, it’s not like anything changes from what we have now.

Olson’s right: minorities shouldn’t be forced to wait at the back of the line while society catches up.

Scalia uses the obvious conservative dodge- if you don’t like the court ruling, demand that the outcome be subject to the majoritarianism of a popular vote. Thing is, a vote can be just as motivated by ego as by concern for justice. So, not only does e.g. gay marriage have to be morally right, it has to please the egos of sufficiently many people. So Scalia’s appeal in Lawrence is frankly a corrupt appeal.

The USSC math is that Kennedy is the deciding vote. As per usual. I’m not so sure he’s safely categorized; his bias is well known, his core principles seem known only for the fact that they’re not terribly consistent from one case to the next.

It is entirely fair to describe Scalia as anti-gay. To describe him as anything other than anti-gay begs the question of what one has to do and say to qualify as anti-gay if Scalia gets a pass. Clarence Thomas, the least qualified member of the court and more or less another Scalia vote, is a routine embarrassment who has shown no regard for any oppressed person in America. His rulings qualify him as anti-gay.

I find the previous paragraph more telling of Scalia’s attitudes about gay citizens and whether they have any rights:

One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U. S. C. §654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640 (2000). [emphasis mine]

Scalia finds anti-gay discrimination in public school employment to be “mainstream”.

If Scalia thinks that it is legal for States to set up gay persons as a class of people and to deny them equal access to state employment justified solely by the animus of “many Americans”, I am quite certain that he is adequately anti-gay as to find no protections for same-sex couples who wish to marry.

In a more long-winded way, it reminds me of Carrie Prejean saying “no offense” before offending us. It’s quite obvious Scalia doesn’t think LGBTs have any suspect class rights at all under the federal constitution, and that’s all I need to know about him.

Whatever one thinks of Scalia’s judicial philosophy, the man is undeniably a brilliant man, and I think it is unjust to dismiss his dissent in this case–or in any case, no matter how wrong he may be–as an “an angry screed.” Moreover, I think your quote about the “homosexual agenda” is taken more than a little out of context. Scalia made reasonably clear that he had absolutely no problem whatever with people pursuing the “homosexual agenda” through democratic means. He writes,

“Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more _require_ a State to criminalize homosexual acts–-or, for that matter, display _any_ moral disapprobation of them–-than I would _forbid_ it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new ‘constitutional right’ by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that ‘later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,’ and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.”

Bad legal reasoning it may be, but characterizing it as an “antigay,” “angry screed” strikes me as more than a little over-the-top.