Clay Bennett by Clay Bennett

Clay Bennett

Comments (14) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. omQ R

    omQ R said, about 3 years ago

    Who is the bloke that has greater-than rights? Baseball cap….redneck?


    Should use a kepi.


  2. omQ R

    omQ R said, about 3 years ago

    Hmm, I was using the French word & hat, kepi, and I had associated it with the Foreign Legion who usually wore them with havelocks (new word for me,thanks). The image I borrowed coincidently was a Yankee baseball cap with a havelock which I thought would be more recognisable for Americans. Random trivia,“rooi-nekke” -rednecks was the Boer term for British soldiers.; they obviously did not use Sir Henry Havelock’s invention as much as they should have.

  3. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, about 3 years ago

    The cable TV channel History 2, or H2, has some shows about the origins of words. (I don’t always believe them)
    The term redneck they say started in Scotland with bishops wearing red cloths around their necks to show that they were rebelling (against whom, I am not sure).
    I believed for 50 years that the term applied to men who worked outside and the sun burned them unevenly.

  4. omQ R

    omQ R said, about 3 years ago

    @Rockngolfer

    Cool :)



    At this moment, Bennett is wishing we had caught sun stroke, left the topic of hats alone and got back to the ’toon’s real topic…

  5. Newshound41

    Newshound41 said, about 3 years ago

    The right for same-sex marriage.

  6. David B

    David B said, about 3 years ago

    Are the churches going to be “forced” to perform a ritual that is against their doctrine? If you want “married” status in the eyes of the law, then there is no problem.
    .
    I want to see how this is going to play out when a church refuses to perform a marriage ritual? I’m not a “churchie,” but in this matter, I side with the church to refuse.

  7. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    It’s actually an illustration of the fact that “separation of church and state” PROTECTS the church! Legal rights granted by the government, have no impact whatsoever on the church’s right to deny equality if they chose. (When they operate businesses as a corporation, like hospitals for instance, that is NOT infringing on their “religious” practices. If they don’t want to grant rights to their EMPLOYEES, don’t become a business instead of a church.)

  8. omQ R

    omQ R said, about 3 years ago

    I had understood it as the bloke on the right seeking equal rights while the one on the left had greater rights or wanted to remain with greater rights.

  9. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, about 3 years ago

    @Rockngolfer

    “I believed for 50 years that the term applied to men who worked outside and the sun burned them unevenly.”

    That’s the accepted contemporary meaning, yes, and that’s it’s origin, I believe.

    But .. the phrase has been used over history to express opposition to those they perceived ‘not them’, in many different senses.

    I don’t know about it being used re bishops, but certainly Scotland fought the English on many fronts, and religion was certainly one of them.

    I may have to look in to that – thanks!

  10. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, about 3 years ago

    @Rockngolfer

    “I believed for 50 years that the term applied to men who worked outside and the sun burned them unevenly.”

    That’s the accepted contemporary meaning, yes, and that’s it’s origin, I believe.

    But .. the phrase has been used over history to express opposition to those they perceived ‘not them’, in many different senses.

    I don’t know about it being used re bishops, but certainly Scotland fought the English on many fronts, and religion was certainly one of them.

    I may have to look in to that – thanks!

  11. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, about 3 years ago

    @Rockngolfer

    “I believed for 50 years that the term applied to men who worked outside and the sun burned them unevenly.”

    That’s the accepted contemporary meaning, yes, and that’s it’s origin, I believe.

    But .. the phrase has been used over history to express opposition to those they perceived ‘not them’, in many different senses.

    I don’t know about it being used re bishops, but certainly Scotland fought the English on many fronts, and religion was certainly one of them.

    I may have to look in to that – thanks!

  12. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, about 3 years ago

    @David B

    “I want to see how this is going to play out when a church refuses to perform a marriage ritual? I’m not a “churchie,” but in this matter, I side with the church to refuse.”

    The only way I can see this being an issue would be if a gay couple who was very devout and did not want a civil marriage or union, but wanted to hold out for a religious ceremony.

    In that case, they can probably find what they need in most cases at least, if they are persistent, but I can’t imagine this being an issue except for a few. It seems unfair to them, but I don’t see how any church could be forced against it’s policy to marry a gay couple.

    These days, even straight couples marry civilly, so I really don’t see it as any but a small and intermittent issue.

  13. Hawthorne

    Hawthorne said, about 3 years ago

    “The rest is religion, which is separate from state.”

    Yes, but in fact, marriage is a civil union, even if you are married by a legitimate religious representative. If (s)he doesn’t return the correct form to the state, you are not married at all in the eyes of the law.

    Must agree with the poster above, though, who observed that separation of Church from State actually protects religious observance. I would observe that it also preserves the State – which was probably the original intention, I suspect. Theocracies tend to devolve into some form of dictatorship in short order.

  14. Newshound41

    Newshound41 said, about 3 years ago

    No problem with that as long as the same-sex couples enjoy all the same benefits as the heterosexual couple. Taxes, inheritance, parental rights over the children they have, the right of one partner to make decisions for the other regarding medical care when the ill partner is unable to make the decision for him or herself.

  15. Refresh Comments.