Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

Next up at the Supreme Court: the Defense of Marriage Act. Pope Francis opts for humble quarters. And an ordained minister celebrates her first anniversary as an atheist.

Categories: Culture

Lauren Markoe

Lauren Markoe

Lauren Markoe covered government and features as a daily newspaper reporter for 15 years before joining the Religion News Service staff as a national correspondent in 2011. She previously was Washington correspondent for The State (Columbia, S.C.)


  1. As per my post yesterday complaining of not getting the links and the subsequent reply by Y. S. I am happy to report that although I cannot see the highlighted links in the roundup my screenreader does list the links, albeit in a much different way than you sighted folks see them. So, while I would prefer a”link” after each link as in other sites I visit I am at least satisfied that I can access all the links that everyone else does in the roundup.

  2. Now, as to the issues of gay marriage, otherwise known by me as equal marriage under the law, I have come to the conclusion that those who do oppose said equal marriage under the law, still can do so on religious grounds but if they say that the constitution doesn’t allow it are being a bit hypocritical in the sense that if we as Americans say we believe the constitution and that constitution clearly states that all are to be treated with equality then we, as Americans cannot bar anyone from being married whether we disagree with their choice or not. Many still disagree with persons of color having equal rights but that does not stop the vast majority of Americans from following the constitution and agreeing that all are to be treated as equals. While there are those who would like to argue that the constitution does not explicicity say seperation of church and state just 1 look at the constitution will reveal that it does. The framers knew what they were doing. Having escaped religious persecution themselves the framers knew that if we allowed the church and state to rule together, so to speak, that we would just descend into that rabbit hole of religious fascism that so many are so eager to descend into today. Not me, I can comfortably have my religious convicttions and still allow for the fact that the constitution overrules those convictions when it comes to matters of treating everyone equally under the law. That’s the land I want to live in for to live in a land ruled by so called Christian or shira or any other religious law is a land that is going to discriminate against someone else based on their religious convictions. That someone may be you or me, and I have no desire to live in any land ruled by some kind of religious law. No, I’ll take the constitution and it’s provisions that EVERYONE is treated equally under the law.