Great job on this one, Royce. 5's

Well thanks, Serafina, that is very kind of you.

Royce, this is a masterpiece of parody technique - superb internal rhyme and magnificent pacing - structurally speaking, a very well-crafted parody of the original song. 5's

Johnny--thanks so much

Good job, Royce, but you better forget about taking that San Francisco vacation anytime soon. Reminds me of the TV show "Queer 5s for the Straight Guy"

Excellent job Royce! I didnt know you were such an expert on gay marriage lol

Does this refer to human gay marriage only, or is hobbit gay marriage okay? ;-)

Well done, Royce.

Royce, well done, although I don't agree with the sentiment. I don't have anything against the institution of marriage. Religious groups certainly have the right to say what types of unions they want to recognize but as a Public policy issue I see no need for any rules about who consenting adults may marry. I remember when I first moved out of my folks house in 1969 into an apartment in No. Hollywood there was a gay couple that had the apartment right across from mine at the top of the stairway. They never caused any trouble and I recall a night when some stoned out fools out to rob somebody at gunpoint mistakenly knocked on my door, my older brother answered the door and sensed they were not coherent and tossed their asses down the stairs (yeah, it was a pretty bold and chancey move, but it worked). It was over real quick, but it was loud. Those guys next door were there a moment later to see if we were alright - only ones in the building that cared to check. Shoot, if they wanted to get married I don't know if I'd want to kiss the bride but I sure would show up to pay my respects. 5-5-5 on a well-written parody...

Royce, I just saw this - a great piece of work on all levels -everything said above plus the fact that the song selection was on the mark. I found this extremely funny because you are so wrong on this issue.

Loved it. I assume you're "wrong on this issue" because "there is no right and wrong on this issue". The logic of society's syncretism...

This still don't help those Catholic priests. That old pope guy won't let 'em get hitched up anyhow.

Look, Sez Me, what they wanna do at home is their bizness. But it ain't marriage. I don't care what you sez. You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong. 5,000 years of the human race's definition of marriage, sez you're wrong to think anything other than one man married to one woman is marriage. You guys are so arrogant, Sez Me! What makes you think you know more than 5,000 years worth of mankind as to what works? What are you, enlightened? By whose standard? Certainly not God's. Once you open the definition up to being whatever you want it to be on any given Thursday, then someone else can open it up to include marriage to a consenting close relative, consenting trios, or more-o's - or marry your dog, sheep, walrus (provided he's consenting), - and who are YOU to tell him he's wrong? You already opened up the definition to personal interpretation.. If you want anarchy, Sez Me, just start making legal terms (marriage is a legal term) as ambiguous as a homo's sexuality.

Sez me - it's nice to hear that you're so tolerant of lifestyles other than your own. Sorry, I didn't know that you were God's spokesperson. My guess is that your God is a hell of lot more tolerant than you seem to be. And, oh yeah, that's what will happen - the union of man and beast - I noticed the long line of people and their pets waiting to get into City Hall to get a marriage license on the way to work this morning. By the way, he is a she - Royce is a woman. My comment was meant for her and not you - it was also meant to be funny and I'm sure (at least I hope) Ms. Miller took it that way. While my viewpoint differs radically from Ms. Miller on this subject, I found the parody to be well-written, quite funny and overall entertaining - you may have missed that part of the comment. Keep the faith and my best to the creator, bob

Nah, I try not to get angry. And, yes, you are being intolerant of other lifestyles. Well, it wasn't too long ago that your legal definition of marriage did not include interracial marriages - so it has been altered, and recently at that. Not sure where I said in this post that I want to get rid of God in America - but there is a separation clause. While the Declaration is a magnificent document - it is the Constitution that is the law of the land. What are you really afraid of? I just can't believe that you believe man and beast or woman and beast will be applying for marriage licenses - you seem a lot brighter than that.

Robert, what set America apart from every tyrany, SEZ ME, is that WE SEZ God is our standard. As I SEZ in first my comments, once you open up marriage to include same-sex, you can't tell a beastiality guy that he can't marry two or more people, or even his consenting walrus. Society many centuries ago set the boundaries, based of the Biblical definition. So it was one man and one woman. Now, Robert SEZ, open up the definition to include same sex partners - but no further. Now YOU have set a boundary. So, how do you tell the next "disenfranchised alternative sex group" that THEYy can't open up the definition to include THEIR preference? Think about it Robert, SEZ ME. You wouldn't want to be labeled "intolerant" now, would you?

So, are you saying that granting interracial marriages was wrong? You're saying that granting interracial marriages led to the current state of parts of our society asking for same-sex marriages? Sorry, Sez, I don't see this as a "slippery slope" issue at all. Laws are made to evolve over time - the U.S. Constitution is a dynamic document - it's been flexible enough to change with the times. The bible is not the law of the land in the United States - and I don't remember seeing any mention of God or the bible in the Constitution. If I understand you correctly, gay marriages should not be allowed because God and the bible say so? Interesting how it's also clergy who are performing these marriages - different god? Or, does god not like what they're doing and chooses to ignore them? Look, as far as I'm concerned, religious organizations can have any belief they want to in terms of who should be eligible to marry. But, when it comes to the government, I'd much prefer that we are inclusive rather than exclusive - because you don't like it or believe it to be unnatural shouldn't deprive others of being able to choose their (human) partners. Whether it's sanctioned by god is between those people and their god. Look Sez - you and I are never going to agree on this, so I'll respectfully bow out of the debate here (but will certainly read your response). Frankly, my fear is quite the opposite of yours - I fear that not allowing gay marriages will lead to, say, a Constitutional Amendment allowing only for sex in the missionary position and only if the participants are married.

Robert, SEZ ME, I realize you have made my own point for me. You SEZ: "Well, it wasn't too long ago that your legal definition of marriage did not include interracial marriages - so it has been altered, and recently at that.". SEZ ME to that - The Bible, from where we drew our legal framework, never said interracial marriage was illegal or immoral. This is where people stepped in and made up their own definition of what marriage is - and they were wrong. BTW, I am not against homosexual civil unions, SEZ ME. It only seems fair and reasonable. But once you call it marriage, with all the ramifications that go along with it, then ministers and rabbis whose religion prohibits it, will be forced through the courts to marry gay couples, or be guilty of discrimination. NOW who's being intolerant? So much for your separation of chuch and state, SEZ ME.

Robert, SEZ ME was writing while your last comment was posted. I would just like an answer regarding my comment on what happens when YOU set a boundary saying the definition of marriage includes same sex - but no further. You'll find you don't have a leg to stand on in denying someone else that same option of redefining it. Remember, once you defeat "THEM", then YOU become "THEM" for somebody else, and you wind up on the defense. As far as a "slippery slope" goes - we've been on a slippery slope for decades now, SEZ ME. Look at the part religious faith played in public life forty years ago (all religions), and how far it has been eroded by the left. I'll read one last comment, and then gotta run. Nice to talk with you, SEZ ME.

Because there is separation of church and state, the government could never force churches to perform gay marriages - but a Justice of the Peace would be forced to perform marriages. In fact, I would be totally against forcing clergy to perform the ceremony. You can call the state sanctioned ceremony what you want as long as the rights are the same as those rights granted to heterosexual couples. Long live separation of church and state (for both our sakes). Later, bob

A very funny take on a very controversial subject. Loved the parody. It flowed well and has its humor. Best to laugh it off and not get all bent out of shape about this. When and if it ever comes to ballot I will cast my vote for what I believe. Well done Royce.

Yes, Guy, it is a very laugh-worthy parody, SEZ ME, but "bent out of shape"? I'll bet Robert never had more fun in his life (well, at least recently). And I'm just laughing myself goofy. I'd hang with Robert at a ballgame any ol' time, SEZ ME.

Sez - I think we both left some answered questions - I'll call a draw due to the fact that philosophically, we're just on opposite ends of two extremes. Point taken on "us and them" - kind of like the farther one is to the left, the closer one is to the right. Passionate debate - yes; bent out of shape - no. Ballgame - any time pal - but why do I get the impression that, as a Mets fan and dedicated Yankee hater, you're probably a Yankee fan? It's been real. bob

Robert P. - Nice job of carrying the ball here - my ears were pinned up and I was close to snarling a little at "SEZ" when I read that "Certainly not God" remark and the following sad fantasy of the hell-handbasket arriving with a Noah's Ark boatload of "Guys & Dogs" standing in line waiting to be joined in connubial bliss. Say, did you know that Wilbur and Mr. Ed were talking about marriage at one point? Yep! I mean, think about it - Carol really never understood Wilbur, but Mr. Ed was really tuned in to what Wilbur was all about. So Wilbur was gonna divorce Carol and tie the bridal bridle with Ed. But Ed called it off, turns out when he told Wilbur he would marry him he was only horsing around.

Jeez, lighten up guys. It's not like two dudes getting hitched is going to bring about the end of the universe as we know it. Btw, I voted 5-5-5. I figure if my gay friends marry each other then they're leaving more women for us non-gay folk ;-) Hehehe...fortunately I have a lady so I don't have to think about it anymore :-D

Don't know if you're still there, SEZ ME. You know, you've been in NYC too long, Robert. You act like SEZ ME is far outside the mainstream in his opinion. You might want to check the latest nation-wide polls, SEZ ME,. Between 70 and 80% of Americans are against redefining marriage to include same sex partnerships - but like SEZ ME, are not opposed to gay civil unions. So why are you and Paul upset with little old SEZ ME? I'll tell you why - 'Cause, while I 'd enjoy taking in a ballgame with either of you (I do have friends who are libs, and a few who are even "gay" - and know my position on the lifestyle) - You're both northeast liberals, who live in a liberal bubble, and think that their mindset is mainstream, and not to the left of most of America - which on this issue, you clearly are. Middle America in 2004 is not about to go with redefining marriage, SEZ ME. BTW Robert - I'm not from the land of Senator Clinton, however, my loyalty to the NY Mets goes back to 1962 when they played in the Polo Grounds and lost 120 games - believe me, THAT'S loyalty, SEZ ME!

Hi SEZ, I'll boil it down and if you want details you can ask me. OK - only quibble I have with you is your level of Presumptuousness. You PRESUME things about me that are not known to you and in fact are not true. Yeah, that bothers me, it's a bit of an annoyance because he puts me in the position of correcting you and normally I don't like to go there. Anyway, I'll give a small example - I am NOT a NorthEast Liberal, I live in no bubble, I am, in fact, by YOUR definition of such probably far "to the left of mainstream mindset" - this isn't to say I'm bette(or worse, either), I just don't see the world that way and no poll survey or current wave of popular or unpopular opinion will sway me on the principles that I truly believe in. Lesser issues are of course negotiable. That's enough, I'll leave the rest alone because it would be nit-picking and that's pointless. I hope I've cleared up your impression of me. I look forward to a clear and informed relationship. Thank you.

Sez - re: "northeast liberals" - thank you for the compliment - I only hope that I am as progessive as you say I am. "Between 70 and 80% of Americans are against redefining marriage to include same sex partnerships . . ." - so what? Whatever happened to protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority in this country? I'll let you go back over the past 200+ years and see what wrongs were made right over the objections of the majority. Nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce - so much for your match made by heaven, huh? What are you afraid of? Might the success rates of gay marriages be too high? Perhaps you believe that this "cult" will start converting the masses - you'll wake up some morning, find out you've turned gay and have a sudden urge to get married? (Oh, and mighty big of you for having a few gays and liberals as friends - I wouldn't drink their kool-aid.) Hey 1962 - I'm impressed - I've suffered as a Mets fan since '67 - still cry when I see highlights of the '69 series. Later, bob

Such hostility! Now, from the "If You Thought You Hated SEZ ME Before" Department: The Bible states in the old testament, that the act of homosexuality is "an abomination in the sight of God". It doesn't grant anyone permission to hate those who practice homosexuality, or to think yourself as being better than them, but it is to say that God forbids the practice, and SEZ ME will make no apologies for believing Him. YOU may not agree with the God of the Bible, but is it okay with you if millions of Jews and Christians worldwide and in America DO? Please don't argue that overused misapplication of "separation of church and state", SEZ ME. In America the people ARE the government, ARE the state. To truly separate church and state, it would be necessary to either separate all religion from the people, or marginalize religious people from the rest of society (which is where America is unfortunately heading with Christians; Europe and the Middle East with the Jews). SEZ me is still awaiting a straight (pardon the pun) answer to his previous question to Robert: Since the beginning, it was one man and one woman. Now, Robert SEZ, open up the definition to include same sex partners - but go no further. Now YOU have set a boundary. So, how do you tell the next "disenfranchised alternative sex group" that THEY can't open up the definition to include THEIR preference? Think about it Robert, SEZ ME. You wouldn't want to be labeled "intolerant" now, would you? Now, SEZ ME is going to 10-4 you, and I will not be returning. I have not been a regular to this website - stumbled on it, really. SEZ ME has other sites to visit where this type of discourse is more appropriately played out. SEZ ME stated why redefining marriage is not a good idea, but that gay civil union is a reasonable and fair alternative in that it would provide legal protection, without redefining what a marriage has been for 5K years of recorded human history. For her trouble, and for believing the word of the God of Abraham, SEZ ME has been rudely called names, and accused of all forms of malice. The worst I described you fellows as was "northeast liberal. Paul goes ballistic. SEZ ME regrets Paul is not comfortable to be referred to as such. Robert, you wear the label proudly (even John Kerry won't do that!). Well, you both know the vast majority of Americans are not in favor of redefining marriage in 2004. Will you treat them as you've treated SEZ ME? Kisses.

Caught a typo: should be THIS question to Robert. No, I'm not a he-she (tee-hee-hee)! Will read your comments, and then adios me gone.

Royce, sorry to tangle up the comments on your song with this "SEZ ME" person...Just one more comment from me and I promise to leave it alone here after that. ATTENTION: SEZ ME: Hello again - I have no further comment on all the preceding comments. I believe they speak for themselves at this point and require no further clarification from me. So, my final thoughts on this: You seem to want to define everything and everybody on your terms and then accuse people of hostility when they don't accept your definitions. What you think I am or think of me does not matter...It might if we were going to continue communicating but after this remark from me I'm done with this. If you look back you will see I neither attempted to define you or attack you. I checked Bob's remarks and he doesn't try to define you either. My last remark prior to this was to let you know that if we were going to continue any communication you would need to stop putting me into a box in whatever world you live in and deal with ME as a person instead. I can see that this is not going to happen. So you now have my permission to define me however you wish, make of me what you will, dress me in funny clothes and put me in the "Liberal" box. But you'll have to play the game without me...Thank you, Good-bye.

Typical liberal response, Paul. Don't debate, just whine and derail. I think you're better than that. You can't deal with the fact that SEZ ME's beliefs are in sync with the vast majority of Americans - so get pissed off at America while you're at it.. Label SEZ ME as you wish. You didn't comprehend one single thing I said, except you made a whiney big deal out of being referred to as a northeast liberal. Boo Hoo. And I suppose Robert saying I would lace my guest's Kool-Aid isn't insulting. Give a wholesome American girl a break!

Can anyone play? Sez Me was just commenting on what is true in religion, and what has been the histrical definition of marriage. Like it or not, some homosexuals are attempting to rock the status quo. It is a revolutionary concept, and it's also very reasonable that not everyone is going to agree with it, especially religious people. That doesn't make them intolerant, as if that's the worse thing in life you can be. I don't think Robert or Paul addressed the specific points Sez Me was making.

Sez - you ingnorant fascist - nowhere did I call you a name - I did accuse you of being intolerant because you are. (And very un-godlike, I might add.) Sorry, I didn't take the bait when you started the fire there. If you're looking for a theocracy, go to Iran (although - and let's define you now - you and your merry band seem to be doing a good job of accomplishing this in our Republic). The bible does not dictate nor define United States law; the Constitution does and yes Sez - even you are not above the Constitution. Because you seem to have some sort of ongoing communication with God, please ask he/she/it for all of us - what is the word of God on this subject. And I ask because clergy have been performing the service of same-sex holy matrimony of late - so, again, I ask you - different God? (Seems to be telling you one thing and some clergy another.) Is it possible that the word may have changed over the last 5,000 years (you know, like the wrongs of society which have been righted in our country over the past 200+ years)? Finally, apparently it is you who have not been reading the posts closely - yes, there are many unaswered questions left by you. And let's talk about he kool-aid - I suggested the YOU do not drink the kool-aid made by your (few) gay and liberal friends - I never suggested you were lacing kool-aid. (Have we lost our sense of humor Sez?) On this and your other mis-representations, I accept your apology. (You may want to apologize to God for getting the word wrong.) Sez, I commend you - you used one of the many tools of the right-wing - the God card - as you know, because you've painted us there - the left just can't win against the god card. Still hoping your god is more compassionate and tolerant than your portrayal - bob

Robert, I foolishly thought that you or Paul would at least address the question I raised. You did fall into liberal lockstep, however. Rule 42: If you can't articulate your position, attack the character of the one you disagree with. To that end, you both get A's. You must be awfully proud of calling me an ignorant fascist. You show me where one thing I've said is outside the teaching of orthodox Judaism or mainstream Christianity - or where my thoughts on redefining marriage are not held by the vast majority of Americans. Are THEY all ignorant fascists, too, Robert? It isn't good enough for Robert or Paul that I support gay civil unions, but not the redefining of "marriage". It has very little to do with homosexuality. If a group wanted to redefine it to say "from this moment forward the wife is the property of the husband" - I would oppose it just as strongly (maybe moreso), because that is a redefining of the institution. Why didn't you attack Royce on her parody - just what do you think SHE'S saying? I learned that more now than ever, you can't dialogue rationally with liberals. They will not hear what you are saying, even when you are speaking in plain English. SEZ ME owes her husband a "You were right, Honey", for thinking it could be different.

Sez - I'm sorry that you're missing the humor in our discourse. The "ignorant fascist" remark is a take-off on SNL's Point/Counterpoint. It's a parody site - I recognize and appreciate humor from several different ideologies and I try to interject humor even in debate. Paul is right - you have an agenda - put us in the box and neatly package it. Yes, I'm a northern liberal who believes in tolerance, compassion, equality, freedom and the Constitution - so stone me. Frankly the combination of your lack of a sense of humor and strict adherence to biblical scripture over our Constitutional rights is quite frightening to me. I want to be inclusive rather than exclusive. I believe people should live their lives they way they want to not the way you want them to. I'm exhausted after participating in yesterday's war protest - I quit, you win.

Whoa, has the dust cleared yet? First off, Royce, I like your gay little parody. But, man, I was so busy defending my title of Angry, Write Mail, I seem to have missed the Main Bout. I think y'all spent way too much time and space at Royce's parody, and solved nothing. The only comment on the subject I have is this: I must agree with Sez and Uppity Puppity (this is a name?), at least in one respect. You basically ignored what Sez said (On paper, that sentence makes absolutely no sense!). You both went on and on about being labeled "NE Liberals. Well, I think Paul's from the west coast, but so what? Where's the foul? You called Sez an ignorant fascist. Now you say it's a reference to SNL, but if you said that to me, I wouldn't make the connection either. Well, I said my piece. This isn't the hill I wish to die on. Bigger sand dabs to fry.

FORMERLY ANGRY, WM - I had promised not to post any more comments on this but I must defend myself briefly. I did not, never have and never will call anyone an "ignorant fascist" in my comments. So I'M calling a foul here, understand? Maybe I'm taking this too seriously but you ought to take the time to read stuff before you make accusations. I joke around a lot of the time but when I talk about things like FREEDOM, BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS & RESPECT and other things I have strong and serious beliefs about I try to be very precise - may not always be successful, but I try, anyway. So if you have any shred of integrity you will please re-read all my comments and apologize for your accusation. Over & out...Thank you...

The ignorant fascist was my line - for humor and to pitch a softball to Sez. Angry, you didn't read the entire posts if you think that Sez's comments were answered - they were, over and over again.

Paul, I was going to clear up your confusion, but RP did that for me. RP, I read all the comments, and am looking forward to the movie. I didn't see a response to the "how do you handle the next "disenfranchised alt sex group" comment. That one would have been a question of mine, too. And I still don't see where SEZ, not wanting to redefine a legal institution is guilty of homophlebitus. But, ahhh well, it's another week. My Formerly Angry, etc. best to you both. Now, turn those frowns upside down, Buckaroos.

Angry - as I said in a very early post - I don't see this as a slippery slope issue. (I also am talking about the basic rights of people.) The question is not even a valid one. And, I'm not sure where I accused Sez of being homophobic - (I did ask, because I think she is, but I never stated that.)

Bob, it may or may not be a slippery slope issue, but of course the question is valid, because I asked it, and I don't ask questions merely to see my name in print. Let's neither of us be so protective of our causes that we are too sensitive to ask and answer earnest questions. But as I said before, this isn't the hill I wish to die on.

Angry - my reference was to Sez - I don't know how many more times I could have explained it - that's why I said the question wasn't valid - don't be takin' things personally now.

The Former Angry Artist Known As...Awww, I Forget : Well, I'm still a little confused as to who is who, but OKIE-DOKIE...But actually the ONLY thing I directly criticized about 'SEZ ME' was the unquenchable desired this person had to PRESUME things about people...so they could be neatly thrown into a bin ("Liberal" usually) and hence have their thoughts and opinions first disregarded and then, worse still, replaced with what "SEZ" felt were the 'proper' opinions a "Liberal" might have. Then 'SEZ' would go off on a ramble about how out of touch that was. You know, I have a pretty logical mind and that type of muddy-assed thinking annoys the hell out of me. If someone wants to think that way THEMSELVES, hey, that’s their problem. But don't pin that type of mindless twaddle next to my name. I really don’t want to have a discussion with someone whose brain works like that - It might be contagious. Thank you for trying to clean this mess up. I'm really sorry we crapped up Royce's Comment thread. Her parody clearly stated what she thought, I'm fine with that. It was well done..

Yeah it's really me, just test marketing some new monickers! Paul, I don't want to steam your clams, but I'm really starting to think Sez had a good point in her closing comment - I've tried to explain my point of view on issues here, too. But when I see how what I said was perceived, the liberal in almost every case I can think of, got it completely wrong - and yet we speak the same English language. I don't think it's an intelligence issue, but what jumps out from a statement to a liberal, and what jumps out for a conservative are very different. I read all the comments, and I only see one paragraph about NE libs, and lib bubbles, etc. - no expounding on it. I find it interesting that I read the comments, and you read the comments. I see careful articulation to illustrate why Sez holds to a point of view. You see it, and all you see is that she presumed you were an east coast liberal. Paul, do you have any idea how many times liberals have called me a Right-Wing Fundamentalist-Christian Extremist, just because I vote Republican and go to church? My greatest concern (this week) is the high level of anger I see being expressed in this country, and the apparent inability of people to reason together.

For two weeks he's lied awake waiting for the very moment to make his return to AMIRIGHT.....He will not sleep....he will not die....he won't have to wait for long......

Angry When Wet: PRESUMPTIVENESS: read "SEZ" post of 03/19/04, 3:02pm. I won't repeat whole thing, just one phrase "Certainly not God's". Excuse me, THAT is a presumptive statement - You can put it any 'Spin-dry' ideology machine you want and it still PRESUMES to know exactly what the Creator wants. You can believe that if you want but don't sell it to me as a fact. I really want to get out of this loop now, I not being paid to educate people on language. "SEZ"'s whole rap, indeed, I think whole EXISTENCE wraps around PRESUMING things about everyone, including GOD. Take all of that and keep it away from me and my rights and my country. It may surprise you to know I have my own views on GOD. I won't discuss them with you except that I think it's incredibly PRESUMPTUOUS of someone to put words in GOD's mouth and "SEZ" can't stop doing it. Now, can I PRESUME you understand me and not have to go down word-by-word thru "SEZ"'s spiel and notate them for you? Don't confuse this with anger, it's frustration. One of my New Year's Resolutions was to suffer fools more gladly but I am failing at it...

"Women live longer than men. You know why? 'Cause they're not married to women!" -- Alan King, at least as far back as 1959. Maybe now we'll find out for sure.

PR - A sidebar ...Just as you may dread the idea of religion playing a role in forming public policy - someone like myself is angered by the removal of religion from the public arena. Religious people of many faiths in America are getting a secular world view jammed down their throats on a daily basis. This same sex marriage thing is a perfect example of it, because it forces people for whom it's an immoral act to sanction it. I've read many of the writings of America's founding fathers (Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and many others), pertaining to the relationship they believed should exist between the God of the Bible and the state. The secularists have sold this country a bill of goods. The evidence AGAINST the interpretation of separation of church and state that is exercised today is absolutely overwhelming - and that includes the writings of Jefferson.

Hey, Sez Me, don't be hating on walruses!!

I just accepted provolone into my life. Adopt my lifestyle or I'll have to press charges. Reality distorts my sense of television!

Sticking your hotdog in your buddy's buns is no picnic. DYK, John Kerry has come out against ho-marriage, too.

"TELL IT TO THE MAROONS!". Am I Righters now have a special place to intelligently opine to their hearts' content on POLITICS, RELIGION, and CURRENT EVENTS - without shmutzing up someone's Parody Comments area! Go to the Song Parodies Message Board, and look for the thread, "TELL IT TO THE MAROONS!".

Walrus? Is Yoko using the Oujia board again?

Zippy: It's a provolone... from which there is no return... Yikes, that was a cheesy pun...

Aaargh! The dreaded one-ster got this one! >:(

Royce, beautiful job. However, If two people love each other, just let them get married.

Mean-spirited and unfunny.

Royce good job. Some others, it's just a parody! Take a valium!

Y. U. Write? - Excellent and most appropriate. I will now leave Royce's mistreated comment string mercifully alone from here on out. Anyway, as small recompense I see it now has zoomed into the Weekly Rankings into the top 5. Peregrin, I should have known better than to get into this...hate it when people stick words in my mouth...hmmm.... looking around for my valium...all out...Do ya' think Xanax would help? Thanks.