On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on same-sex marriage, which is now legal in about three dozen states. But it’s also legal in most states to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodation. So, an LGBT person can get legally married in most states, but then be evicted from an apartment and denied a home loan. Gay-rights activists are urging state lawmakers to change anti-discrimination laws — which already include things such as race, age, religion and disability — to include LGBT people. Religious groups opposed to gay marriage, on the other hand, argue that the public accommodation element would unfairly require business owners to serve same-sex couples, even if they have a moral or religious objection. Should you as a society force them to do that out of principle? (precis of an NPR item May, 2015)

Everyone, regardless, should be covered by the anti-discrimination laws. This shouldnn’t even need to be debated; it is just that the law hasn’t caught up with public opinion. Gay couples should enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

I personally don’t object to the use of the word “marriage” for gay couples if that produces a happier and more pleasant life for them (basic Epicureanism), as opposed to using the term “civil union” which should in any case entail all the legal priviledges of marriage. There is insufficient love in the world as it is. But I respect the point of view that says that the word “marriage”, introduced as a sacrament by the Christian church in 1184, is freighted with tradition and religious and reproductive significance and changing the meaning can make even liberal and open-minded people uncomfortable. If the Supreme Court rules against extending the term “marriage” to LGBT couples, it may be that it was “too far, too quickly”. Moral: bide your time, do what’s practical, i.e. extend the legal priviledges first, and don’t provoke excessive push-back.