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