It’s funny how discrimination is perceived. Sometimes, we’re sure we’re the targets of it, even when those slights we are so convinced are directed at us aren’t really slights at all.

Earlier this month, a federal judge expressed concern over the suggestion that our current system of currency discriminates against the blind. Blind people have difficulty distinguishing between the dollar bill and, say, a $50 dollar bill. That presents an obvious problem, and forces them, pretty much, to rely either on caregivers, the kindness of strangers, or debit/credit cards.

Some courts have determined, therefore, that our system of currency discriminates against the blind.

The aforementioned judge wasn’t so sure:

“‘Where does this stop?’ asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Are postage stamps illegal? Government Web sites? When mail carriers leave handwritten notes on front doors, are they discriminating against blind people?

“‘The National Gallery is having a Hopper exhibit,’ Randolph said. ‘Those paintings, do they violate the Rehabilitation Act?’”

What lengths have to be taken to create completely equal access without “discriminating” against the sighted?

Should art galleries close their doors or be penalized because the blind cannot use their services? Sure, it seems like a silly question. But here’s one that maybe isn’t as silly: should such institutions lose governmental funding because a certain percentage of the population is unable to use them?

The sad reality is that not everyone is equal: there are handicaps. (I’m sorry if that word is offensive, but I’m not sure what the current “politically-correct” substitute for handicap, when used in general terms, is at this particular moment.) Maybe, if I were blind, I might feel differently. I suspect, however, that I would accept the fact that there are limitations that I just have to deal with. Just as I must deal with certain limitations based on my size and fitness level. I don’t demand, for instance, that local municipalities stop funding events like marathons because I haven’t always been in good enough shape to participate.

Our constitution says that all men were created equal. But everyone does have his own unique set of gifts and deficiencies, and no matter how hard society works to equalize those disparities, there’s only so much that can be done.

Am I comparing apples to oranges? Maybe…I’m not sure.

Meanwhile, NBC’s Brian Williams recently came under fire after a comment he made on the air and on his Daily Nightly blog over at MSNBC.com. He was concluding a segment about the 60th wedding anniversary of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, marveling at what seems like such a great accomplishment, especially in this day and age, when, as he put it, “marriage seems ‘under attack’ as an institution.”

The gay community, as you might expect, immediately took issue with that statement, assuming that Williams was making an editorial comment about their efforts to establish gay marriage.

Williams was quick to clarify, saying:

“My meaning? Our national divorce rate, which is currently somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. Others took it upon themselves to decide that I was somehow attacking gay marriage. The simple fact is that nothing could have been further from my mind, as many others easily understood. In fact, one comment shared with me today came from a respected member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, who said, ‘It seemed to me he was talking about the sky-high heterosexual divorce rates. Marriage IS under attack — by straight people. It had nothing to do with the gay marriage movement.’”

I couldn’t agree more with that sentiment. When we reach a point — as we seem to have reached some time ago — that prenuptial agreements designed to divide marital assets when (not if) things go awry is more and more the norm, the “institution” of marriage is in far more trouble than any ultra-conservative would have you believe. It certainly doesn’t face harm when loving people who happen to share the same gender want to embrace it because they actually want to stay together.

Still, some say Williams should pay more attention to what could be considered offensive to segments of the audience.

This, too, has a reasonable limit. Almost every day, someone finds a new way to be “offended” by something. If we constantly edited ourselves to avoid offending anyone, I suspect the English language would quickly condense itself to about a dozen words and no one would have the courage to use any of them.

The intention of a speaker, like beauty, unfortunately, is always in the eye of the beholder. I think it’s about time the beholders start holding themselves to the same standards they demand of those of whom they seem to always assume the worst.