There are no better angels to whom these men turn.

The Supreme Court's dissents on marriage equality are remarkable for the openness of their animus and endorsement of the worst in people's natures. Take this comment by David Kurtz, at TPM:

Antonin Scalia's rabid dissent on gay marriage is getting most of the attention, but John Roberts' dissent is more thoughtful and at the same time more bleak and even foreboding. He claims LGBT couples have "lost forever" with the Supreme Court's decision:

Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.

Roberts is arguing for allowing the democratic process rather than the courts to hash this out, and while I disagree with that argument in this case, it's a legitimate constitutional argument. But he goes to a place -- where LGBT couples can NEVER win "true acceptance" -- that almost condones, or at least gives comfort to, an unending intolerance. 

You may have your new, court-awarded constitutional right, but you will never be truly accepted.

And, before launching his "rabid dissent," Justice Scalia simply backhanded the LGBT population of the United States:

After a series of opinions, speeches and public comments expressing his strong disapproval of us, vigorously defending society’s right to express this attitude in discriminatory public policies, Scalia begins his characteristically vitriolic dissent by protesting that “the substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me." 

Then, former Congressman Barney Frank wrote:

Returning to Scalia’s profession of unconcern about our marrying, while I doubt that he means it, I am very glad that he said it. In what I acknowledge is a somewhat ironic invocation of the specific words, it is an example of the guidance provided by La Rochefoucauld for analyzing  arguments: “Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” When a debater unconvincingly seeks to dissociate himself from something he has long advocated, he is acknowledging that he recognizes the unpopularity of what he believes, and he is prepared to sacrifice it to win the point.