That's what I was getting at: When I said that O'Connor's concept (that you can't make a law just because you disapprove) was a bit off, I was trying to say what Scalia said much better-er. Just about every law we have is enacted in marked disapproval of a particular group or their activities. But, as Eno points out, he loses steam when he starts comparing homosexual marriage to homosexual sex (as we married folk know, sex has nothing to do with marriage). His point about rational basis is merited too, and as I had predicted, the Court took the easy way out: didn't give the homosexuals a protected class status, but found the law "irrational" anyway. I'm not sure the logic holds up. It's too bad the Court has to cut corners this way to get the plurality it needs, but c'est la guerre. Thomas' argument is so passe - that old chestnut about enumerated rights was hot back when Phillip Michael Thomas had a singing career.