Yes, of course they do, but I was wondering if literary is limited to serious. In the same way that the OP was asking if chick-lit and literary are a legitimate combination. I haven't read chick-lit, but I would think it would be legit - I can't see why not. But I can't think of any literary-type comedy except, you know, Shakespeare and the dramatists - which isn't quite what I meant..
I would consider Catch-22 to be a literary comedy. I think Mark Twain added a lot of humor while tackling serious subjects, as well. Someone might disagree about classifying his work as literary, but that's how I always thought of it.
I think that most literary fiction, in my experience, tends to have a darker, almost sarcastic sense of humor. Lydia Millet and Miranda July come to mind.
Then you have the people who write more genre-esque literary pieces like Kelly Link and George Saunders. They often have plenty of humor in their stories. Both know how to craft some amazing sentences, but I think most people would lump them into the speculative fiction category.
So, no, I don't think that serious and literary have to mean the same thing.
As for the OP, I would just call it chick lit. I think most publishers and the general reading public would be more inclined to give it a shot. The only thing adding literary would do is possibly alienate potential readers.
I don't think that a chick lit reader would mind some heavy topics, but I do think that a literary reader might mind a chick lit style, if that makes sense.
ETA: Geez, I just realized how old this thread was. I just saw October and assumed. Boy, don't I feel dumb. Oh, well.