Well, as the various state courts and the SC find themselves commonly divided on this issue, we ought not to be surprised that we are too. What Scalia might find 'self-evident' or aligned with the fundamentals of american history and values, Ginsburg might not.
Part of our problem here is that sociological categories are ususally pretty messy. 'Conservative' means something, but the members of that 'class' show variation that intersect with the class 'liberal' or libertarian or in some cases, anarchist. This ain't apples vs oranges.
A relevant item has just come to our attention with the firing of Arabic speakers in the military at a time when that particular skill has a somewhat acute importance
LINK . Now, can we say the US military is 'homophobic' (aversion to, predjudice or discrimination against homosexuals or homosexuality)? Can we say it isn't? Can we make any valid or reasonable or illuminating statement at all about human groups, given their internal diversity? If not, then the concept 'American' could be coherent only regarding someone with approved citizenship.
Could we say homophobia is greater in Saudi Arabia than in Canada?
We could say, looking at the case above, 'some in the military are homophobic' surely. Or even that a particular policy demonstrates homophobia. Yes? No? (and by the way, who the hell was it that put the demon in demonstrate?)
Can we say that taboo X is extant in culture Y? Can we say it is influential? Can we say that it is fundamentally causal in group behavior and opinion?
