Hey, Scalia, I can play the transposition game too...

[BayouBengal07]

How does it sound when I substitute some other pesky, contentious rights into your argle-bargle?:

By formally declaring anyone opposed to interracial marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity”of mixed-race couples, see ante, at 25, 26. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.

Or,

By formally declaring anyone opposed to desegregation an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting race relations to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity”of minorities, see ante, at 25, 26. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over race relations—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.

Was the Court out of line in deciding the way they did there as well?