The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Scalia has often shown his animosity to gays through his interviews and his opinions regarding relevant court cases, most notoriously his scathing dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas, which essentially decriminalized so-called "deviant" behavior between consenting adults in private, 6 years ago.
Now, with 2 new justices on the bench who happen to be ideologically similar to Scalia, it's no wonder why Frank or other gays would have reservations about a more socially conservative high judiciary to stifle equality progress for gays or even possibly roll back gains already made by gay activists.
"Scalia said he did not think it was an issue for the Courts..."
That's where he is mistaken. When individual liberties are put up for popular vote, more often than not, the "tyranny of the majority" prevails, as was the case with Proposition 8 in California. Under these circumstances, a truly impartial judiciary is not only preferable but necessary to rule on certain liberties/rights that are not explicitly stated and/or defined under the Constitution.