They were “devastated” when the decision was delayed.

But if voters had not approved the ban in the first place, we would not be in this position now.

Once again, Michigan voters stepped too far.

The statewide vote that helped define the “optimal home environment” was flawed by nature.

Whether or not marriage equality has popular support does not make it any less of a right. It was not the constituents’ place to make a blanket judgment in part implying same-sex couples are inherently worse parents, and it is irresponsible for the state to defend that decision.

Ultimately, voters decided that members of the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender community on campus are not entitled to the legal privileges of marriage. Perhaps more devastating, voters decided that by nature, those students are not as fit to be parents as those who are straight.

Although the state has stated that the case is not an attack on whether same-sex couples are fit to be parents, it has opened the door to questioning the validity of those parents and their children.

The case itself places unfair expectations on the plaintiffs to justify what should be the fundamental rights of all same-sex couples to be a legal family.

In reality, no one should have to prove their right to be a parent simply because of their sexual orientation. Placing responsibility on same-sex couples to prove their worth as parents when opposite-sex couples have no such limitation is inherently unequal. No other parents face those hurdles.

And we doubt whether any amount of studies or testing could prove who is the most fit to raise children based on their sexual orientation.

Certainly there are some same-sex couples who are bad parents, but there also are straight couples who probably never should have had children. Whether or not someone is an adequate mother or father has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, and voters should not be able to restrict the rights of an entire community based on prejudiced generalities.

Friedman should carefully consider the constitutionality of a statewide ban on same-sex marriage. If that means taking another several months to review the case, so be it. He already admitted that he was “a little nervous” in court Wednesday and that he “never had a case like this before.” A quick decision could open the door for appeals and an even more drawn-out process to question the ruling. It is worth taking a little more time on the issue if it means the process will be done correctly.

But when the trial begins, proving whether or not same-sex couples can be equally good parents as opposite-sex couples should not take center stage.

No amount of scientific evidence could prove or disprove an entire demographic’s worth as parents, and no voter fairly could, either. Facts and figures only are worth so much, especially in a courtroom of lawyers where simple numbers could be distorted or taken out of context.

Ultimately, this is a matter of morals, social equality and, most importantly, fundamental rights — none of which should not be dictated by a popular vote.