His dissent is quoted in support of one of the findings of fact which states that "California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate".

I just read the entire Scalia dissent on Lawrence v. Texas, though, and the scary part is I'm inclined to largely agree. But then, that has less to do with my social views which are miles away from Scalia's, and more with my living in a civil law country where the notion of courts reaching all kinds of farreaching decisions is rather new. Though of course the European Court of Justice nowadays is making similarly influential decisions. In any case, Scalia's argumentation dismantling the majority opinion is fairly convincing.

Though I should note that there is one gaping weakness in his dissent, which is that he argues morality - which according to Lawrence v. Texas isn't sufficient reason for denying people rights - is the only justification for laws against the following: "fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, same-sex marriage, masturbation, prostitution and obscenity". Which is utterly silly - as far as I'm aware, there aren't even any laws against fornication, adultery and masturbation anymore, or at least they're never enforced, while there are obvious reasons to prohibit several others that don't rely on morality. About same-sex marriage and obscenity, he's right of course, and arguably about prostitution as well, but the list as a whole looks ridiculous.