DOMA and Prop 8: How PolicyMic is Covering Same-Sex Marriage and the Court


Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court will issue its opinion in two landmark cases: United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. Dealing with the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, respectively, they will shape the legal architecture of marriage in the United States.

At PolicyMic, we've covered it live, looked at the cases from all angles, and offered personal reflections that have ranged from powerful emotional appeals to fact-based arguments. We'll continue to cover Wednesday's mornings decisions in real time and publish a range of perspectives from PolicyMic pundits. In all the coverage, we're prioritizing accuracy and promoting healthy debate and discussion.

It's been a riot reading some of the personal reflections on the same-sex marriage cases. PolicyMic'er and pro footballer Chris Kluwe sounded off in an End to DOMA. Alex Lundry wrote: If the Supreme Court Listened to Millennials, Here's How It Would Rule on Gay Marriage and Cristina Maza weighed in with four unexpected reasons to support same-sex marriage. But, it hasn't all been personal opinion.

We've also looked at the back story of DOMA and Proposition 8 and the different ways the Court could rule on them. Pundit Derek Miles' piece, The Supreme Court Could Punt on Gay Marriage, looked at some of the technical issues involved while Sagar Jethani dug into the history of DOMA and role of Bill Clinton.

We've looked at how the Court's rulings on DOMA could effect other big policy issues, like immigration in DOMA and Immigration Reform: The Surprising Crossover.

Another debate centered on the role of government in marriage anyway and what principles the Court should apply. In Why the Supreme Court Will Fail America With Its Prop 8 and DOMA Decision and No Matter How SCOTUS Rules On DOMA and Prop 8, They've Made the Wrong Decision Pundits Robert Lee and Luke Young argued against government's involvement in marriage altogether. Shoshana Weissmann looked at "judicial engagement" and why it could save same-sex marriage.

And this has just been one set of Court cases. Pundits have similarly explored Shelby County v. Holder (voting rights) and Fisher v. University of Texas (affirmative action) from an incredible set of angles, over the past couple weeks. It's one of the advantages of being a democratic news network, comprised of stellar pundits with diverse perspectives. You get to cover things from all angles and debate and discuss those opinions.

No matter how the court decides today, it's a landmark moment in American culture. It's a great day to discuss, debate, and share!