Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EMMA KERR
EDITOR IN CHIEF
MELISSA SCHOLKE
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
DEREK WOLFE
MANAGING EDITOR
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
4
Thursday, July 2, 2015
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION
Over the past decade, the
movement for marriage equal-
ity has undeniably possessed
immense
momentum.
Pre-
viously,
same-sex
marriage
was legal in 37 states and the
District of Columbia, but the
ruling finally ensures that all
government proceedings reflect
the vast amount of support for
same-sex marriage across the
country. According to a recent
poll by the Pew Research Cen-
ter, 57 percent of Americans are
in favor of same-sex marriage.
The Court’s actions end a
decades-long debate that has
slowly inched toward altering
the definition of marriage under
the law. Most recently, two
years ago, the Court declared
aspects of the discriminatory
Defense of Marriage Act to be
unconstitutional.
The
com-
plete legalization of same-sex
marriage nationwide was the
next logical and inevitable
step to ensure equality for the
LGBTQ community. As both
past and present actions illus-
trate, it’s integral to the opera-
tion of any government to
realize the malleability of cul-
tural values and to adjust our
laws accordingly as we, as a
society, progress.
In the majority opinion,
Justice
Anthony
Kennedy
described exactly why adjust-
ment was needed: “As some of
the petitioners in these cases
demonstrate, marriage embod-
ies a love that may endure even
past death. It would misunder-
stand these men and women
to say they disrespect the idea
of marriage. Their plea is that
they do respect it, respect it so
deeply that they seek to find
its fulfillment for themselves.
Their hope is not to be con-
demned to live in loneliness,
excluded from one of civiliza-
tion’s oldest institutions. They
ask for equal dignity in the eyes
of the law. The Constitution
grants them that right.”
Finally, after denying these
individuals their liberty for
far too long, the Court’s ruling
ensures each marriage will be
upheld and recognized accord-
ing to the same standards. The
decision paves the way for
equality not only in the realm
of marriage and civil unions,
but it additionally guarantees
accompanying
benefits
and
rights in a variety of areas, such
as adoption, health care and
financial matters.
All that said, last Friday’s
historic decision serves as a
reminder of all the progress
that has yet to be attained. But
People being people
certainly, the judgment in Obergefell
v. Hodges will aid in successfully com-
bating legalized discrimination that
continues to exist in numerous states,
including Michigan. For now, though,
Friday’s ruling is a moment to celebrate
and a testament to the will of a nation to
enact necessary social change.
FROM THE DAILY
It’s about time
SCOTUS declares constitutionality of same-sex marriages
L
ast Friday morning, after months of deliberation, the Supreme
Court voted 5-4 to legalize same-sex marriage across the country.
Citing equal protection under the 14th amendment, this ruling
also requires all states to recognize any same-sex marriage performed
in another state. The Obergefell v. Hodges case provided a long-await-
ed resolution to tenuous legal battles brought forth by a consolidation
of several cases — one of which was DeBoer v. Snyder, a case challeng-
ing Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban, which subsequently prohibited
same-sex couples from jointly adopting children. This momentous but
severely overdue ruling by the Court merely marks the beginning of
striking down unjust legal barriers and taking steps to dissolve immense
discrimination faced by the LGBTQ community. But by recognizing the
diverse range of couples and families, last Friday’s decision sets forth a
crucial historical precedent to ensure full equality for all.
E
ach generation is defined by
its monumental occasions. For
ours, last Friday was undoubt-
edly one of those
days. The Supreme
Court ruling — in
years to come —
will stand as a piv-
otal
moment
of
progress that was
long
anticipated
and
was
widely
celebrated by those
close to me.
Delayed for far
too long, marriage
equality was a necessary cultural shift
that didn’t come quietly — nor should
it have. Within a mere matter of hours
after the decision was first announced
— and certainly by the next day — the
divisive nature of the issue was splayed
on computer screens across the coun-
try. Amidst a stream of rainbow-tinted
profile pictures, news articles and jubi-
lant announcements, there were only
a few posts on my personal newsfeed
that didn’t share the same excitement.
While a select number of posts prompt-
ed some lengthy debates, the few that
argued a differing set of beliefs tried to
do so respectfully.
However, during a phone a conversa-
tion a few days later, I learned that my
newsfeed had probably been slightly
more colorful and more enthusiastic
than those belonging to members of
my family or to some of my friends in
other parts of the country. Not yet real-
izing that I probably had been encapsu-
lated in a progressive, millennial media
bubble, I grew increasingly aggravated
and passionate as I was told some of
the opposing points raised against the
decision. A family member — detecting
my not-so-subtle annoyance — told me
important words to remember when-
ever I was talking about this particular
case. They parted the conversation with
the phrase: “Let people be people.”
“Let people be people?” I was so con-
fused. What else would they even be?
This phrase – although I still didn’t
get it— kept resurfacing in my mind and
appearing on the page as I scrawled
down scrambled words, passages and
column ideas. The more I pondered
the seemingly vague and obvious state-
ment, the more applicable it seemed.
People disagree. People argue. Peo-
ple hold a varying degree of beliefs that
will inevitably clash, but even so, the
dissonance between conflicting ide-
ologies needs to be addressed without
judging, or denouncing, the other per-
son or endangering their rights. Ideally,
this was probably the intended meaning
of the message when I first received it,
but I delved a bit further.
In a way, the statement — albeit a
rudimentary one — summarizes the
Supreme Court ruling as whole. As
humans, we all seek to love, to find con-
tentment and to enjoy the environment
and the people we surround ourselves
with.The goal of the Court ruling was
to let people be themselves and love
freely without discrimination. The suc-
cess of Friday’s milestone demonstrates
humanity’s capability to persevere and
devote itself to a cause.
While the government may have
guaranteed individuals this right, the
next actions need to involve ensuring
the security and comfort they rightfully
deserve as they do so. Despite the wide-
spread acceptance and support exhibited
for the goals of the LGBTQ community,
expressing one’s identity fully isn’t done
without precautions. Members of the
LGBTQ community continue to face
immense rates of violence and harass-
ment. The freedom to marry and settle
down may extend across the nation, but
financial and career stability isn’t guar-
anteed in each state. Protections pro-
hibiting workplace discrimination based
upon sexual orientation exist only in 22
states, and only 19 of these states possess
statutes guarding against discrimination
based upon gender identity. Additionally,
increased rates of poverty and homeless-
ness still need to be addressed.
People — while they may strive for
security and companionship — also
tend to fear the upheaval of tradition.
Recent attempts to nullify or combat
the Court’s ruling, as suggested by
a group of government officials and
presidential candidates, only demon-
strate an unwillingness to improve
the greater good in an attempt to
calm this trepidation.
Let people be people. It’s a simple
statement, and it most likely lacks
some needed nuance. Yet, at its core, it
describes a basic principle for how we
should act towards one another. As a
society, our goal, despite differences of
opinion, should be to promote the idea
that each person is free to express their
identity as authentically as possible
without outside inhibitors or judgment.
— Melissa Scholke can be
reached at melikaye@umich.edu.
MELISSA
SCHOLKE