New Adventures of Queen Victoria by Pab Sungenis for May 29, 2009

If they want to defend marriage, ban divorce.

Pab, as a so called “defender of marriage” I do indeed get the joke. There’s a LOT of people in this country who shouldn’t marry. She is indeed one of them. At least, not until she “Grows up”.

and wndrwrthg, sounds like a great idea to me! :)

Monty willing, by the time she grows up and gets married, she will no longer be of breeding age.

Perhaps people should concern themselves with their own marriages (or lack thereof) and let others (Britney, gays, whomever) do the same.

“Do unto others…”, or is it “Let he who is without sin…” . Or maybe Ann Landers: “MYOB.”

That said, I wallow in gossip from time to time myself. I just try to not be judgmental.

Pab , I just had to say to you about yesterdays’ comments: Way to go , Pab. Thanks for wading in. I never fail to be surprised that there are STILL people who believe that a person would CHOOSE to be in a minority that is shunned discriminated against looked down on laughed at IT’S NOT A CHOICE !!! A GAY PERSON CAN NO MORE CHANGE HIS DESIRES THAN A STRAIGHT PERSON CAN CHANGE HIS. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

well, I hope your contract is renewed..your humor would be missed…… when you read comments like that….just keep remembering you are living your dream……it’s pretty cool to be doing what you’re doing……and let it roll off your back…… good luck

You’re right, nighthawks. I tell people that people choose to be gay any more than I choose to be big and ugly.

I love the trenchant wit of this strip, Pab! Thanks for putting it so succinctly!!

Liliann, that’s my sentiment in a nutshell. Religions do not get to tell the government who can make a contract with whom for anything else. But let it involve a marriage contract, and their brains explode. What is a sacrament to a religion is also a civil agreement between two parties. The churches use campaigns of fear and fraud to convince people the two are the same and that allowing Those People access is a kiss of death. They did the same thing for mixed-race marriages. The sanctity of their rituals remained intact. This will be no different. Hasn’t been any different anywhere else they got wise and shared the freedom to choose who they want.

Should polygamy be legalized too? Why not? The old-school Mormons would appreciate the vindication, not to mention fundamentalist Muslims. It’s just a private matter between two or more consenting adults and there’s a heck of a lot more precedent for polygamy than for same-sex marriage.

Then someone starts whittling away at the “adult” qualifier… and laws against first-cousin marriage…

Personally I think the whole gay marriage meme is just a plot by divorce lawyers to drum up new business. In and of itself I don’t care, especially assuming that there aren’t children involved (the protection of whom is a major point of marriage), but I sense a big can ‘o worms being opened.

Pab,

I enjoy the strip immensely and would be sad to see it dropped.

When you touch on controversial subjects, you have to expect knee jerk, uninformed responses. Comes with the territory. Wear them with pride. With my own writing, I have found that the trick is not to avoid pissing off people (an impossible objective) - it is to piss off the people who are not willing to respect your point of view.

I can hear the Cromwell character screaming from offstage for equal time. He was a Puritan @$$. Maybe he could debate Wilde, the original flamer.

If marriage is a “Holy” institution, government shouldn’t recognize it under the 1st Ammendment. A domestic partner contract could be between any number of any gender, excluting minors, livestock & inanimate objects, which can’t give informed concent.

And I thought it was supposed to be funny

liliann, pray tell me where you find the words “separation of church and state” in the U.S. Constitution? I’ve read it through and through and can’t find them.

“touchy”

Pab, I hope you get the chance to read this. I’d like to know what you, and anyone else interested, think.

In the 1850’s the Supreme Court made probably its most important decision, called the Dred Scott Decision. I’m not going to bore you with the details, if you’re interested look him up on Wiki. The result of the decision was that if someone was a slave in one state he was a slave in all of them. Likewise nothing could stop a person from buying or selling slaves in any state. No government, state or federal, could limit a persons property rights. In effect this one Supreme Court lawsuit made slavery legal in every state of the Union, North or South.

I’ve always wondered why this same legal principle hasn’t been applied to same sex marriage. Lets say a legally married gay couple from, I don’t know, Vermont, moves to Kentucky. They buy a house, find jobs and so on. Then at tax time they file as ‘married, filing jointly’. If the Kentucky version of the IRS accepts it, hey, gay marriage has been legally recognized in Kentucky. If they refuse it then bring the case to court. Sooner or later what is really a de facto situation now becomes de jure.

We all have to remember marriage is purely a state function, it has nothing to do with the federal government. But if a marriage is recognized in one state than all other states are legally bound to recognize it. And likewise divorces. This is why Utah had such a hard time gaining statehood and had to ban polygamous marriage.

Even if this were to happen I don’t expect all states to allow gay couples to become married in their states. But once they are married anywhere all states are legally required to recognize them. I do believe though that gay marriage is already a fact of life in America today and people are just going to have to accept it. There will certainly be some hard times ahead, but from where we are now there is no going back.

D

Librarian- the first amendment is considered part of the constitution and prohibits the establishment of religion-most people and all the founding fathers took it to mean ‘separation of church and state’.Other than that-love the icon.

lln, not quite. Congress (that’s the House and Senate) shall make no law (self-explanatory) respecting (regarding) the establishment (the firm setting in place) of a religion (any religion, or lack thereof) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (meaning they can’t limit the rights of the people to exercise their religion, even in public.)

It doesn’t use any of the words “separation”, “church”, or “state”.

It doesn’t say anything about individual states making laws regarding marriage. It doesn’t say that Christian icons can’t be displayed in public places, or, even on government property. All it says is that Congress can’t make any laws regarding a federally mandated religion, and it can’t make any laws prohibiting anyone of any religion from practicing their religion.

Please try to remember how we got to this country in the first place.

And thanks. It took a while to find a suitable one. I love 80’s music, so it just seemed to fit.

i was raised a catholic and this taught me the true meaning of the word bullshit