When Scalia was OK with the targeting of gay men by the government
This is the Lawrence v. Texas case decided by the Supreme Court in 2003 which overturned laws that targeted gay men for anal/oral sex but not heterosexual men or women, a violation of equal protection on its’ face.
Scalia’s words: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision.”
When Scalia stated this, this wasn’t some “originalist” opinion on what the law and Constitution are but a person who sincerely believed that the government should be locking up gay men for their sex lives, unlike Clarence Thomas who dissented in upholding the law but said he would, if he was a lawmaker, vote to overturn it.
Scalia was pretty good on the 4th Amendment but he was a theocrat, at least to some extent and he wanted the government to regulate the sex lives of Americans, including masturbation.
He said how could bans on beastiality be justified but molesting a dog or cat is not the same at all of consenting adults having sex with other consenting adults.
There should not be laws on adultery, that is between the spouses. If they want to pursue a divorce, fine but I don’t think a person should be imprisoned for sex with another consenting adult, even if adultery. I don’t think Trump should have been imprisoned at least three times for adultery,either.
The only laws on obscenity should be child obscenity. And yes legalize prostitution, and regulate it. So Scalia was wrong on pretty much all accounts, except for sex with animals.
And seriously, laws against masturbation, do we want to lock up every teen boy and pretty much ever adult man and well, women too. Do we want to lock up 99% of the population?