Matt Davies by Matt Davies

Matt Davies

Comments (10) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Ez2foome

    Ez2foome GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Last century? More like medieval.

  2. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Ez2foome

    Well, at least he’s got the “Evil” part down pretty well…
    Of course, whenever I see Scalia and Thomas together, I can’t help but think of Jack Benny and Rochester.
    “Oh… Clarence…”
    “Yassuh, Mr. Scalia, yassuh…”
    (And I just KNOW I’m gonna catch hell for THAT one!)

  3. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    So stop doing it.

  4. Jase99

    Jase99 said, over 1 year ago

    “Sexual perversion is not a human right”

    Neither is denying other their equal rights based on your pseudo-Christian beliefs. It doesn’t stop you from trying. Or hating.

  5. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    “Sexual perversion is not a human right”

    Says the broken record who wants government drones in every bedroom.

  6. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    “Methinks the lady doth protest too much…”

  7. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    We award civil legal privileges to married couples, based on the expectation of the presence of children in the marriage. We also accord those same civil privileges to other couples based on their exclusive commitment in a relationship without benefit of offspring. We must either require that a marriage be consummated by the realization of genetic reproduction before the awarding of these privileges, or allow that any couple in a committed monogamous relationship is similarly entitled. Before long, any two persons will be able to produce viable offspring by combining their genetic material in a laboratory. Perhaps the child may even be brought to term in an artificial womb. We will certainly be faced with this decision again at that time if it is not dealt with now. The civil legal benefits derived from a marriage are the issue, and the recasting of the concept of marriage to include states beyond that of matrimony itself should not be the preferred angle of attack. Redefining marriage is not the object. Obtaining parity in legal privilege is the objective.

  8. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, over 1 year ago

    ^parity? separate but equal is neither separate nor equal. it is the law of the land.

  9. BrassOrchid

    BrassOrchid GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @dannysixpack

    “^parity? separate but equal is neither separate nor equal. it is the law of the land.”
    Yes, parity. Legal equality. Civil laws regarding marriage are not the same as social and religious tradition. If that were the argument, then all civil privilege reserved for married couples should be nullified and no civil license required for marriage. There is no civil right that guarantees equal religious observation. In fact, no religious observation is allowed to become the official one of the nation. If people really want to step up the the religious marriage plate, then they need to think about starting their own religion, which recognizes marriage of any two persons as one of its sacraments. The it becomes impossible for any civil authority to deny them the right of their free practice of religion. If gays make up, as statistics suggest, 2% of the population, then they have the basis for a New Age Faith with a potential three million faithful for starters. The pieces fit together better when you don’t try to force them.

  10. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, over 1 year ago

    and just how long do you think it will take to get a majority of votes at state and federal levels to revoke the ‘legal’ rights of all married people?

    justice delayed is justice denied. during that long interval your solution is the same as having white people waterfountains and black people waterfountains.

    http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4677646-segregated-water-fountains.php


    I WAS against state recognition of marriage and felt that all married people should have to register for domestic partnership to get the special rights they have now. However, it’s not pratical in the real world and I’ve changed my mind. no less than equal rights now makes sense. it’s too late to go back to a compromise that would have been legal and worked but had no political chance of happening.

    do you really think that people would give up their marriage rights at this point in time?

  11. Refresh Comments.