The editorial board of the New York Times uses the word "discrimination" to describe the policy whereby only heterosexual couples are allowed to marry. Note the ambiguity of the word. In one sense, it is morally neutral. Wine connoisseurs discriminate among wines. A wise parent discriminates among his or her children by rewarding those who are good and punishing those who are bad. Doctors discriminate by treating the sick but not the healthy.
In another sense, the word is morally loaded. It means treating people differently when there is no relevant difference between them. The policy of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is discriminatory in the first sense, but not necessarily in the second. Whether it is discriminatory in the second sense depends on whether there is a relevant difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples with respect to marriage.
The Times has done nothing to answer this latter question in the negative. The claim of discrimination, therefore, is either trivial (if the word is used in the first sense) or unsupported (if used in the second sense).
