I followed your link and saw the original story was incorrect. Scalia said the opposite.

I love the media.

Really? I have to go check this out. I read his comments, and they were pretty clear that he considered it judicial activism. I'll go do some digging.

Here is a link to the corrected version of the debate in the Arizona newspaper - http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/146308. The removed the overt mention of Brown v. Board. But it's interesting to read his analysis. Scalia views the Constitution through the prism of the 18th century! Talk about a suffocating straight jacket. But here's the equal protection language, and it's very broad.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Given that language and precedent I don't see how the Court refuses to strike down state laws banning or limiting the rights of gay couples to marry. Or equal pay/equal work issues. The awful Robert's court dodged that one by putting an impossible time limit on a person's ability to sue. They never actually addressed the issue.