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

