I'm actually willing to cut him some slack on that. There was an interesting footnote in the opinion that was the topic of this blogpost of mine a few days ago:

In his concurring opinion, our colleague suggests that the term "homosexual sodomy" is used by this court in a pejorative fashion. Use of the word sodomy or "homosexual sodomy" to discuss the sexual conduct Lawrence addressed is not original to this decision. The majority opinion in Lawrence used the term "sodomy" no less than seventeen times and the phrase "homosexual sodomy" twice. Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion described the Texas law (and similar laws) at issue in Lawrence as a law relating to sodomy twenty-four times. We also note that several federal cases and innumerable commentators post-Lawrence have described the holding of that case, or the Texas law at issue in the case, as relating to sodomy or, more precisely, homosexual (or some equivalent such as "same-sex") sodomy.

I have, however, blasted the Washington Times for their constant use of scare quotes when referring to "homosexual 'marriage.'" That's just plain obnoxious.

You run the danger – indeed, the imminent risk – of my wanting to nominate you to the Supreme Court. Our disagreements over economics aside.

I think I should avoid including Scalia on Gays in my Scalia Mega-Post (now on newsstands: ep. 1, the Living Constitution) and instead ask you to collect some of your best posts, such as this one.

I do have one thing to add to any such collection: Scalia uses the word "homosexual" rather than and in preference to "gay and lesbian," let alone any of the other lgbtqabc-xyz, because he knows "they" don't like it and it's considered insulting. Much like an aged and racist white judge continuing to use the obsolete and stigmatized word "Colored" well after people no longer self-describe that way, and when everyone else has shifted their language.

Linguistically, this is significant. It's not "political correctness" to notice and accept when a group is claiming for itself a word, even a pre-existing word, and self-describing with it. It's simple observation of a fact. Scalia may not like what's being done with the word "gay," or the word "dyke," and he may never use the word "queer" except to mean strange, but his homophobic resistance to this aspect of language change is as laughable as it is obvious. Someone did a study of his opinions, and found one use of the word "gays," in a footnote. I'm going to cite to it in that issue (episode? serial? missive?) of my Mega-Post, which is Not Done Yet. Dan Perrin is the author, I believe.