IceBuckets saidJust thought this:
If it is a moral issue that the PEOPLE should decide, then who is Scalia, representing the government, to tell people how to run morally run their lives? The governments job is not to impose it's own set of morals on it's citizens. If it is truly and utterly a "moral" issue then the government cannot legally tell someone what they can and can't do with someone of the same sex/gender (or opposite if we want to go there.)
The thing with the SCOTUS we need to understand is that those justices are several layers removed from being elected officials, nor do they necessarily represent the will of We, the People.
At best, the justices and their senses of morality represent a mural of different snapshots captured at different times, which even then are somewhat disconnected from the periods in which those justices were appointed (by the POTUS) approved (by the Congress) and seated (by Constitutional authority).
Their collective job is not to legislate per se, but to interpret existing law in light of the Constitution and existing case precedent.
Justice Scalia is a brilliant man - and I honestly believe that he is writing his opinions based far more from his grasp in Constitutional law than from any especially bigoted or reactionary desire to throw American society back to the Victorian era of morality.
Coming back to the illustration of the "mural" I mentioned - the shared morality of the SCOTUS is at the same time skewed perhaps as much as a generation behind that promoted by the mass media, and is somewhat subjected to a level of reserved expression.
In other words - Justice Scalia (and the rest of the SCOTUS) speaks rightly when they strive to judge the law by its own merits, and to let the people decide on matters of what is and is not moral.
And in some ways, that is can be a bit scary: what guides what is moral?
Clearly, outright murder and theft and rape are immoral.
But in other areas, the public morality has shifted substantially in the past century.
While the fine folks at the AFC and NARTH suggest that allowing marriage equality will open the door for polygamy and polyamoury ... and to take a wild strain here - perhaps we might see a day when people will want to marry an artificial intelligence.
At that point - the SCOTUS will once again have to weigh in on a matter that may be morally repugnant in one era, and acceptable in another.