Ann Althouse says it well: 
“If you read his opinion [in Lawrence v. Texas], he thinks it’s a good idea for two consenting adults who happen to be gay to be locked up because he is so disapproving of gay people.” (Barney Frank) 
Well, Barney, I have read that opinion many times, and I know that you are either lying about having read it, lying about what Scalia wrote, or an embarrassingly incompetent reader. Here is the key passage:
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.
That’s plain old deference to the democratic process and a resistance to creative interpretation of constitutional text. There is nothing â€” absolutely nothing â€” to support the proposition that Scalia thinks it’s a good idea to lock up gay people.
I’ll not hide from you I have some quibbles with Ann in this, But mostly, it’s nothing earthshaking.
I’ll tell you this; Ol’ Slobbering Barney is demagoguing this for the purpose of throwing some red meat to his biggest supporting demographic, incidental to trying to divert attention from his direct involvement in the creation of our financial problems. That, after all, was why he decided to take the “Gay 365” interview in the first place.
Let’s remember, for all that Barney and his Democrat pals up on the hill like to say GWB caused the current problems, let’s recall that it is Congress, not the Presdient that has the power of the purse… and that the Democrats have been in control of Congress these last two years… which, not coincidentally, is exactly when this financial sleigh ride started.
So, now we have some idea why we have all this smoke and all these flames around Lawrence v. Texas, a six year old case. It’s just another weapon of mass distraction.
Unless of course, Ol’ slobbering Barney really does feel that way about all of this, in which case, he’s speaking not from understanding but from fear. Fear of the other. Were such fear directed at him as he is directing it at Scalia, he’d call it homophobic. Not so out of line, then, perhaps to call Barney Frank a Hetrophobe, by the same token, then, is it?