From an interview last year w/ Justice Scalia:

blogs.wsj.com

First, Massey asks Scalia about the 14th Amendment, whether its equal protection clause applies to sex discrimination or sexual-orientation. Asks Massey: “Does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?” Answers Scalia:

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws… .

But the serious money quote comes a bit later in the interview, in response to a question Massey asks about how Scalia applies his notion of originalism when the original meaning of a constitutional section “is either in doubt or is unknown.”

Answers Scalia:

“I do not pretend that originalism is perfect. … We don’t have the answer to everything, but by God we have an answer to a lot of stuff … especially the most controversial: whether the death penalty is unconstitutional, whether there’s a constitutional right to abortion, to suicide, and I could go on. All the most controversial stuff. … I don’t even have to read the briefs, for Pete’s sake.”

Let us repeat that last sentence, for emphasis, in case any Supreme Court litigants are reading: “All the most controversial stuff. … I don’t even have to read the briefs, for Pete’s sake.”