Liberals love to gripe about Justice Antonin Scalia’s blistering dissents, but on same-sex marriage, he has been right about what they mean and what they are bringing about. Here’s Robert Barnes in the Washington Post:

Scalia’s words have been highlighted in the two recent decisions about same-sex marriage that will return the issue to the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Black cited the dissent in a ruling that said Ohio, which bans same-sex unions, must recognize on a death certificate a marriage that was performed in another state.

“Just as Justice Scalia predicted — the lower courts are applying the Supreme Court’s decision, as they must, and the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot — i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples . . . simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality (or at least didn’t in 2004),” wrote Black (the ellipses and parenthesis are his).

“Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no.”

In Utah, where just before Christmas a federal judge struck down that state’s constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex unions, Scalia’s words played a prominent role both in the challengers’ arguments and the ruling.

What I can’t figure out is if the SCOTUS majority is that dense, or if they’re playing a long game. I’m guessing the latter. Results-oriented jurisprudence, you know.