Amoredifficultquestioniswhetherstateruleslimitingcivil“marriage”todifferent-sexcouplesisdiscriminationagainsthomosexuals.Ontheonehand，marriagehastraditionallybeenlimitedtodifferent-sexcouples，andthislimitationdoesnotreflectanti-gayprejudice.Ifyouunderstandmarriageasaninstitutionuniquelyforprocreationbetweenthespouses，thenstatenon-recognitionofsame-sexmarriageisnotadiscrimination-indeed，itwouldbeillogicaltorecognizesuchunionsasmarriages.Ontheotherhand，civilmarriageinmostmoderncountriesisnotlimitedtoprocreation；thepointofcivilmarriageistoencourageunionsofcoupleswholoveoneanotherandwanttoformafamily，withorwithoutchildren.Becausemanylesbianandgaycoupleshavethesameaspiration，theirexclusionfromcivilmarriagemaythenbediscrimination（EskridgeandSpedale，2006，chap.1）.
2.Shouldanti-gaydiscriminationbeamatteroflegalconcern？
Notall“discriminations”shouldbeillegal.IntheUnitedStates，forexample，theSupremeCourthasalloweduniversitiesto“discriminate”infavorofracialminorities（andthereforeagainstapplicantsofEuropeanancestry），inordertoachieveagreatergood，namely，harmonyanddiversityinstudent’seducationalexperience（Grutterv.Bollinger，2003）.Somediscriminationsaresominorandepisodicthatfewpeoplebelievetheyshouldbeillegal；socialdisapprovalissufficient.Thatmaynotbethecaseforanti-gaydiscrimination.ItiscertainlywidespreadinWesterncountries，andwillprobablybecomemorewidespreadinthePeople’sRepublicaslesbianandgaycommunitiesbecomemoresociallynoticeable.
Inthelastgeneration，Westerngovernmentshavewithdrawnmost（butnotall）oftheiranti-gaydiscriminationsandsometimesevenbarredprivatediscriminations（Eskridge，1999，app.B1）.Thereasonforthischangeinpolicyisthatmorepeoplehavecometoknowopenlylesbianandgaycitizens，andhaveconcludedthatitiswrongtotreatthemunfairly.Discriminationsimposeunfairburdensonlesbiansandgaymen.Atthesametime，andevenmoreimportant，thoughtfulobservershaveconcludedthatanti-gaydiscriminationimposessignificantcostsonsocietyasawhole.Considerseveralpoints.