I'm a writer, publishing both as SJ Rozan and, with Carlos Dews, as Sam Cabot. (I'm Sam, he's Cabot.) Here you can find links to my almost-daily blog posts, including the Saturday haiku I've been doing for years. BUT the blog itself has moved to my website. If you go on over there you can subscribe and you'll never miss a post. (Miss a post! A scary thought!) Also, I'll be teaching a writing workshop in Italy this summer -- come join us!
Read/Post Comments (4)
I'm a little teary
I'm a straight white woman. I thought the Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act was a disgrace, and I think today's DOMA decision is marvelous.
And who knew there was a "SCOTUSblog?"
10:06 am
The New York Times
Supreme Court Rules in Gay Marriage Case
The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 on Wednesday that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
From SCOTUSblog
Roberts dissents. Scalia dissents. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. The opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.
From the decision: "DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."
SCOTUSblog quotes from the decision:
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others."
And who knew there was a "SCOTUSblog?"
10:06 am
The New York Times
Supreme Court Rules in Gay Marriage Case
The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 on Wednesday that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
From SCOTUSblog
Roberts dissents. Scalia dissents. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. The opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.
From the decision: "DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."
SCOTUSblog quotes from the decision:
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others."
Read/Post Comments (4)
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Back to Top
