While I tend to be a Constitutional originalist like Scalia, I actually despise his thought processes and decisions. He tries to pass his decisions as rational, but really they're awfully political motivated. Quite frankly, he's a brilliant man from an intelligence perspective, and he uses those abilities into coercing others into believing his actions and decisions have any sort of bearing in logical thought. It's a methodology that has served him well throughout his career; thus earning him a spot as a juror on the highest, most esteemed court in the country. While some of his decisions have been spot on from a strict Constitutional perspective, most lack a basic understanding of the evolution of law.
All of that said, I've done some thinking about this article and Scalia's views on "homosexual sodomy," which we must assume is different from "heterosexual sodomy." In the article, he's specifically quoted as saying:
"Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”
Technically, its true, but what does he mean? To figure it out, we must first think how he would think--as the strictest of Constitutional originalists.
Scalia mentions that homosexuality was criminal in every state for 200 years. This is significant as no laws specifically existed either Constitutionally Congressionally. Without either, it would be inappropriate for Scalia to rule in favor of homosexual sodomy being Constitutional. In the most technical sense, sexual activities are not covered under the U.S. Constitution, although "freedom of expression" under the 1st Amendment could be logically stretched that way to make it work. Scalia won't.
Instead, Scalia will justify his decision based on 10th Amendment that grants all powers not enumerated by the federal government to the states. By ruling against the Constitutionality of homosexual sodomy he will be saying it's a state's rights issue; thus upholding any and all sodomy laws within the individual states.
Really, it's an interesting argument. I don't agree with Scalia's manner of thinking on this subject. I think he's manipulating the Constitution in the very same way he criticizes so-called liberal activist judges for doing so.
Again, I don't agree with his viewpoint on this subject. I'm only explaining his likely line of thinking.