Scalia does seem to reflect his views in his opinions–in Lawrence v. Texas he did rail on the homosexual agenda and seemed to reveal his own personal beliefs about homosexuality being not what the mainstream considers to be morally correct.
On the other hand–He is very consistent about the positions he takes. In Lawrence he actually said that he has nothing against homosexuals or any other group advocating for their position but he wants them to do it in the political process, rather than have it be mandated by the judiciary for everyone when the general public might not want that.
Do I agree with his moral position? No. As a gay person, while I can see that some people have this view–I do not.
But I am open-minded enough to concede that the basis on which he makes his decisions are consistent with the methods of interpretation he predictably uses: formalism, originalism, and to process-based theory where he prefers that hotbutton issues go to the democratic process. Does his method of constitutional interpretation make him a homophobe? I don’t think so. Are they convenient in this particular case in reflecting his own moral views? Certainly.
