'Prop 8 - The Musical': Over a month too late!

luxury watch Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:43 PM EST

It's good! rolex watch?
luxury watch?

Raven_Moon Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 02:02 AM EST

That was pretty funny, but I don't think it would have changed many people's closed minds.

Nick Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 06:05 AM EST

CC... if you wish to raise the white flag on what is public knowledge, and then pin "racism" and "homophobic" labels on me, then it displays your own arrogance and ineptitude.

That said, the video itself has only two arguments: that the laws of the Bible are arbitrary and change at any moment (e.g. shellfish), without reallizing that (1) some religions do follow the Levitical laws, and (2) those that don't, take seriously the changes in the "Law" once the sacrifice of Jesus for mankind had taken place (re: Acts). A shame; there could have been good points made by the Jack-Black-Jesus, but anybody with an elementary school education in Bible studies could refute him eeeeeaassily. THEN... the NPH segment appeals to avarice--not necessarily a positive trait. Now, I'm all for comedy, and great satire respects its subjects, honestly depicts their arguments, and is able to make avenues in the debate thru it all. This hack-job effort ain't it.

CC Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 02:43 AM EST

You just don't know how to stop digging your own grave, do you Nick? If you're still wondering why some of your points haven't been argued or rebutted on this board, that's because their refutations have been publically known for some time. You've revealed a surprising lack of comprehension and disturbingly flawed perspective on the psychology of sexual orientation, the history of various civil rights struggles and the history of organized religion. Until you can see past your own bias, your blatant homophobia and racism, there's no point in engaging you on these topics.

Clay Atlas Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:59 PM EST

If only it had come out earlier. What the frick.
http://backorforth.blogspot.com

Nick Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 02:56 PM EST

CC... touche. Carlos declared himself a Hispanic, which I was unaware had any connotation to this debate. The African American contingent however, is VERY relevant on multiple fronts: first and foremost, the gay rights campaign keeps linking themselves to the civil rights era, but 70% of African-Americans would have none of that association. That's because, no matter what gay rights advocates declare, there is nothing that has yet come out authoritatively that links one's orientation with something so primal as race. So people who have been married in heterosexual relationships "wake up" one morning after thirty-plus years and declare themselves SSA, or. vice. versa. This is problematic, especially for the major issue we have today with children in broken homes. So... that is why. Sir Elton John understood that the goal really is to aim for the same rights as marrieds, but without redefining what cannot be redefined. Do this, and you'll find MUCH more support.

CC Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 06:19 AM EST

Oh Nick: If Carlos' race is irrelevant, then why did you use race as the basis of your own point about African American's voting for Prop 8? And just because someone gay supports your argument doesn't make it right either. But it's very revealing that you think so.

Jo Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 03:51 AM EST

That was the best thing ever! Screw prop 8!

Craig Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 05:18 PM EST

That was freaking hilarious!!! Years from now we'll look back at the passage of Prop 8 with disdain.

Nick Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 04:02 PM EST

A couple of retorts...

Stalecake: your goal then, is to allow those rights that marrieds have and provide them for civil unions. Because it is not possible to re-define marriage. Even Sir Elton John has admitted this. Secondly, traditional marriage is suffering, but it is not dead--but your warped definition of it most emphatically is. Of course, what's to stop a SSA couple from r4ping each other? (No response.) Carlos: happy you declared your denominational status and race (the latter of which is irrelevant to this discussion). But by doing so you have displayed your ignorance as to why the Catholic church teaches what it does. Clearly, you are familiar with the papal encyclicals which explain, point by point, what the problem is, do you not? Even if you aren't, you are familiar with using the advanced features of google.com, aren't you? And you do know that all of the papal encyclical documentation of your denomination is available at vatican.va? Good, good stuff.

Anitamargarita Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:41 AM EST

Carlos - thank you for posting. I don't know where you're from or living now - but I am in South Carolina, where they wrote anti-gay marriage into the constitution BEFORE they bumped up the age of consent to older than 14, and I went to the Rio Grande valley in Texas this year for my Buelito's funeral, and was puzzled by the Hillary Clinton stickers on the cars in the Methodist Church parking lot. I still don't get it; but I LIKE it.

Carlos Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:06 AM EST

Well, I'm a day late, but as a straight guy, who happens to be both Catholic and Hispanic, I fell like I have to say this: Rationalize it any way you want, denying people equal rights is wrong, and history, as always, will prove zealots wrong.

StaleCake Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:57 AM EST

@NICK re: "But if two ssa individuals want to live with each other and reserve their own rental halls and throw confetti and eat cake and recite their vows to each other and declare themselves "married", they have every right to do so. "
NOT TRUE.
These people do NOT have a right to do so, thus the discrimination. They do not get Federal recognition for taxes, next-of-kin status, estate law, or a thousand other rights trhat come with marriage -- anything. What you are stating is not true. Britney Spears can get drunk and declare herself married in Vegas, and she gets 1000 rights that long-term committed couples do not.

Secondly, TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE IS DEAD. Traditional marriage was a man "owning" a woman, whom he r4ped until she bore him a son or died trying. When the Supreme Court delcared a husband could be guilty of r4ping his wife, it RE-DEFINED marriage to make women and men equal. Any woman who is for Prop 8 is a raging hypocrite.

Thirdly - funny song

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 06:18 PM EST

I don't know anything about the Knights of Columbus and Catholic Charities stories you cite, but actually don't have a problem if a private group or business does not want to serve a particular kind of clientele. I think it is their right to engage in discriminatory practices if they so choose. However, I also don't have a problem if a few members of the group being discriminated against decided to peacably assemble outside the company's place of business and let other potnetial customers know what kind of people they are about to give their money to. As a champion of the First Amendment, Nick, I'm sure you can agree with that.

Nick Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 04:16 PM EST

Jim...

1) To answer your first question, (re:adultery and divorce) look at the politicians we've elected. (In some countries, this is still true).

2) To answer your second question, you obviously haven't seen too many YouTube viral videos from the anti-Prop 8 front lines.

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 04:03 PM EST

And spare me the anti-Christian bigotry whining. Call me when a gang of gay people ties a Catholic to a fence post and beats him to death. Call me when gay people start protesting funerals with signs that say God Hates Christians.

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 04:00 PM EST

If marriage as a benefit for the next generation is a reason to outlaw gay marriage, then why isn't divorce and adultery also outlawed?

Justine Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:58 PM EST

To the best of my knowledge, and I'll be the first to admit it to be limited, all of the children that are in the foster care system, all that are homeless and all that are abused (mentally, physically and sexually) originated from a male/female relationship. And I'd wager that aLOT of those relationships are bound by "traditional marriage" laws. So the thought that that is the ideal environment to raise a child, seems a bit off-kilter to me. But...whatev.

And why am I suppose to "answer your questions below", Nick? That's not a can of worms that I opened. But 100 pts. for " epidemiologically"!

Nick Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:52 PM EST

Actually, that was your clue that you should consider what was at stake if Prop 8 was not passed. What I've seen on the East Coast is that wedding photographers are being put out of business because they decline opportunities of SSA couples. A Knights of Columbus hall was sued because they denied a SSA wedding reception there. Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had to drop their adoption program due to their following their religous convictions. My question is, where is their rights? And in a country where any service, any need can be provided for the moment one agency turns them away, why would those not inclined to give SSA's their best work have to be forced to comply? This is what was at stake with Prop 8, and this is the freedom of speech issue that anti-Prop 8's have ignored. Further, the anti-Christian bigotry on full display in the video does them no favors. And they think this is like the civil rights cause? I mean, would Martin Luther King Jr approve? Methinks not.

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:44 PM EST

Well Nick, I am dazzled by your own debating skills. But considering that you are okay with this even being up for a vote, you might not want to toss the word bigot around so cavalierly.

Nick Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:38 PM EST

Well, Jim, I suggest you do some research before you come out with "I'm sure they have their reasons." Just goes to show you're not willing to really understand why Prop 8 passed. Just goes to show that you are the true bigot, Jim.

Nick Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:35 PM EST

Justine... marriage is actually considered a secular institution, for the benefit--not of the two parties involved, but of the next generation. Because people are going to have sex no matter what, but to have a structure that decreases single moms and fatherless kids, which, as every conclusive study has shown, is bad economically, psychologically, sociologically and epidemiologically. Consider how this crosses religious divides. That is why it has always been a secular institution to have as man and wife, even preventing polygamy as an institution when the issue was raised a century-or-so ago.

BTW, am still awaiting answers to my questions below...

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:34 PM EST

CC I've been lobbying for an edit function on these things. Nick, I believe I answered a few of y our questions, particularly on the civil unions being the same as marriage point. As to why blacks and Mormons are for Prop 8, I'm sure they have their reasons, but it doesn't make it right. It never should have been put up to a vote in the first place.

robert j Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:31 PM EST

My partner and I have been together for 14 years, he's been married (to a woman) twice and when he met me, I said, you finally got it right. I will never get married. I don't want to get married but I will support anybody who wants it but!! do it for the right reasons. There are too many quick trips to the altar, too many divorces and too many people who disrespect the instituion of marriage putting their children and family and friends in the middle of their break ups.

Nick Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:27 PM EST

CC... you're sooo awesome in refuting my arguments, that nobody here has even answered my questions. You're soooo gifted in skilled debate. Utterly utterly UTTERLY brilliant.

But, um, you still have to answer my questions before you say that they were refuted.

Justine Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:26 PM EST

Question. If marriage, at it's core, is considered a religious institution (which seems to be the biggest argument against gay marriage, as the bible says homosexuality is evil [I'm paraphrasing]), are people who get married at the courthouse by a JoP considered "married"? What about atheists?

CC Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:25 PM EST

Dammit, I meant Nick's. Not Jim's. Jim's a good guy.

CC Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:23 PM EST

Does anybody else, when reading comments like Jim's and others, and the ease with which their points are refuted, need any more help in seeing why in this particular issue, the popular vote may not be the best final word on this issue? Especially on a win so narrowly achieved?

Here's to hoping the California Supreme Court does the right thing and overturns this ugly, hate-filled amendment.

Nick Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:16 PM EST

Jim...

The solution then, is to expand the laws to dictate that civil unions encompass the 1021 benefits that marriage encompasses--without redefining marriage. Because, redefining marriage is like changing the law of gravity. Can't. Be. Done.

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:14 PM EST

Wrong. Gay americans are asking for same rights and legal protections under the law as heteros, rights that they do not have, just like African Americans did not have certain rights and legal protections pre-Civil Rights. And give me a break on Franken. The recount was automatic because the vote was so close.

mscisluv Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 02:56 PM EST

Anna - You're twisting around your own words, and mine as well. You stated that the definition of marriage has not changed in thousands of years in Judaism. Obviously, this couldn't be farther from the truth. It used to be acceptable (in biblical times) for a married man to take many concubines in order to procreate. This is no longer acceptable. It also was fine for Jacob to have two wives; again, polygamy is completely banned in every sect of Judaism. Specifically regarding gay marriage, the largest denomination of Judaism accepts it and allows all of its rabbis to perform gay marriage ceremonies. So, regardless of what the voters in California chose (which is not necessarily indicative of the larger US population), the definition of marriage has changed and continues to change.

Scarlett Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 02:42 PM EST

Everyone forgets that there is a difference between the civil rights movements for African Americans and the current gay movement.

African Americans were not asking for anything different or special. They were asking for the same thing.

Likewise with those that mention interracial marriage - still the same thing... marriage between a man and a woman.

The gay movement is asking for something different and unique. It's a completely different scenario. It explains why - for the second time the state of California voted to preserve the definition of marriage between one man and one woman.

This is a democracy. It you claim that your side is so tolerant and accepting - then demonstrate that with class. Instead we see a blatant disregard for the laws of this land and see people fighting for the right to win. As if winning is an unalienable right. Which it is not. Just look at the ruckus with Al Franken who refuses to accept that he lost.

Nick Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 02:25 PM EST

No Jim, Anne Heche's switching of orientations is just one of hundreds--thousands--of examples today, of straights who discover they're "gay", and gays who discover they're "straight." Until there is a universal consensus as to what defines a gay person, rather than "I can see it in their eyes", there can never be support for a gay marriage amendment.

G Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 02:10 PM EST

I find it hysterical that religious institutions that used to sell their daughters into marriage in exchange for land, wealth, or political positions have the audacity to turn around and defend "typical marriage" to a group of people who simply want to wed out of love and respect for one another and who want the same protections under state and federal law as everyone else.

Anitamargarita Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 02:08 PM EST

Changed anyone's minds? No, sorry. "Gay marriage will save our economy" is a pretty weak arguement. But did I squeal with delight when NPH made his entrance because I thought it was over? Oh, yes. People came running, and I am in a lone liberal in a conservative jungle in my office. Although I am also the youngest by at least 15 years, so here's hoping for a reveral in the not so distant future. Thanks for the link; it was great fun.

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 01:52 PM EST

And I'm sorry, but Anne Heche as a reason to deny gay marriage is weak sauce.

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 01:50 PM EST

According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 01:48 PM EST

The rights of the minority should never be voted on by the majority.

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 01:47 PM EST

Did Joe Biden and Barack Obama state that gay people should be denied the right? Those are two different things. I don't support gun ownership, but I don't think people should be denied the right to lawfully own a gun.

Anna Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 01:44 PM EST

TO MSCISLUV: Yes, and there are sections of Christianity that support gay marriage as well. However, the MAJORITY of people in California, including blacks and hispanics, voted for Prop 8. This is now the second time in California that the majority of voters have voted to ban gay marriage. Clearly, the majority of people in all faiths do not want it.

Anna Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 01:35 PM EST

In the Vice Presidential Debate, Joe Biden clearly stated that both he and Barack Obama do not support gay marriage. SNL even made fun of it in their skit about that debate. So, unless Joe Biden is lying, that is their position.

Nick Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 01:34 PM EST

A few questions:
Have you considered why blacks, who have benefited from the civil rights movement defeating segregation and defeating laws against interracial marriages, came out in force pro-Prop 8?
Have you considered why Mormons, who stand to benefit with the slippery slope of redefining marriage to include polygamy, came out in full force pro-Prop 8?
Have you considered that California is not really known as a strongly fundamentalist or Mormon state?
Have you considered that, as long as people like Anne Heche keep switching orientations, that there is no way, ever, that one can equate gay marriage = civil rights?
And lastly, have you considered that as long as civil unions are in place, and gays have the right to hospital visits, then there is no difference whatsoever whether Prop8 was passed or not? Except. For. The. Anti-Religious. Bigotry. On. Full. Display. NOW...
To those against Prop 8... does it hurt a lot when you use your brains?

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 01:04 PM EST

And if you think that marriage has been exactly the same and not redefined for thousands of years, you need to read more.

mscisluv Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM EST

I just wanted to correct Anna, who said "So really, this issue is not about hate and unequal rights...but rather, the right to redefine a thousands-year old religious ritual that is strictly defined by ALL major religions, including the Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu religions." Actually, Anna, my husband is a Rabbi, and our movement of Judaism (Reform, which is the largest in the United States) absolutely supports gay marriage.

April Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:42 PM EST

No Nick,

Christopher is right. While I believe that gay marriage will remain a state's issue, it's only a matter of time before many states recognize it.

April Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM EST

Anna,

Obama was against Prop 8. He does believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman but it's when people try to change the Constitution to satisfy what they want, which is what Prop 8 is, that he believes it wrong.

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:37 PM EST

Sorry for double post.

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:37 PM EST

Hey Anna, I guess you forgot the fact that Barack did not support Prop 8 either.

Carlos Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:36 PM EST

Hey lady, get your facts straight. "Milk" is a hit in what people in that bussiness call 'specialty box office'. And although I haven't seen it, I'm sure it's gotta be a little good for critics to drool over it like they have.

Eva Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM EST

Pretty funny stuff. For the record, Jack Black was actually one of the funniest parts of the video, so you missed out, MC. Neil Patrick Harris stole the show, though, as always. I'm getting used to it by now :).

Also, let the record show that I am Mormon, watching a web viral, and in support of gay marriage. Getting a little sick of the sweeping generalizations.

Also, "Milk" wasn't that good. And bombed at the box office.

Okay, I'm done. That is all.

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:31 PM EST

Uh Anna, I guess you like to forget the fact that he did not support Prop 8 either.

Carlos Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM EST

Hasn't history taught religious freaks, like Nick, anything? Sooner or later, you people lose!

Anna Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM EST

*"change and tolerance"

Charles Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM EST

If you support Gay marriage shouldn't you also campaign to have restrictions against polygamy/bigamy and any other religion based laws also reversed? What's the difference, since you argue that's it all about "consenting Adults" anyway. Hey, I'm all about whatever floats your boat. Now THAT would make a great musical.

Anna Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM EST

The thing that cracks me up the most about this video is that they start off by singing the praises of Barack Obama, their champion of "change of tolerance" who will now supposedly make it a better world for gay people....

Except that BARACK OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE. A fact that everyone loves to forget. He does, however, support legally joined gay couples having the same legal rights as married couples, which they currently do in California.

So really, this issue is not about hate and unequal rights (certainly not like the hate crimes committed against churches by anti-Prop 8 people), but rather, the right to redefine a thousands-year old religious ritual that is strictly defined by ALL major religions, including the Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu religions.

Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:21 PM EST

I love Marc Shaiman, but didn't find this very amusing, actually, a little cringe-worthy. I know, I know, irony--but make it entertaining. Prop 8 was hateful and I'm hoping the courts overrule fear and ignorance. (That's how the 60s civil rights came about. Equal rights for all races was too unpopular to vote on or wait for the legislators to act first. We got "good" because we were forced into it--not very different now.)

Jim Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM EST

Shorter Nick: Hey anti-Prop 8, where do you get off trying to get organized?

Hollywood Stars? Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:49 AM EST

Martha, you're being way to generous. I think Jack Black is probably the ONLY person in that sketch who could widely be considered a "star". Perhaps NPH qualifies as a TV star but I think even that's a stretch.

Winona Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:46 AM EST

Wouldn't have changed any minds - but it was AWESOME!!!

Martha Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:36 AM EST

Very clever and well done (Love ya Darryl and NPH!) but I have to agree with Mr. (Ms?) Pantsuit. A video full of Hollywood stars isn't going to change people's minds on this issue.

hmm Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:35 AM EST

How do you think the vandalism and hate crimes inflicted upon churches will be viewed in 50 years?

Disruptive Pantsuit Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:31 AM EST

Could this have changed minds? Of course not. This is one of those issues where everyone has their preconceived position and digs as deep a trench as possible in order to defend it. All this video provides is a couple of mild chuckles.

Nick Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM EST

Christopher, who are you to say what will be looked upon in 50 years? Perhaps in 50 years, the blacklists and hatred of anti-Prop 8 agitators would be seen for the anti-religious bigotry that they are?

Then again, perhaps in 50 years, there will be a medicinal cure for homosexuality.

MC Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:24 AM EST

I tried to watch it, but they lost me at Jack Black. That guy does nothing for me. Not amusing or entertaining.

Christopher Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:24 AM EST

History is not on the side of Prop 8. In 50 years, the people who voted to pass Prop 8 will be viewed as ignorant and shortsighted in history books and in classrooms, just like the people who fought against ending segregation and slavery. Bigotry and hatred are qualities that don't age well.

Rye Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:24 AM EST

Great video, very well-done. Also, chances are, the only people who will see/watch this video, are those already opposed to Prop 8.
However, I felt that "Milk" starring Sean Penn will (hopefully) have a greater impact on ignorance and intolerance. This film is moving and powerful and should be shown in highschools across the country.

Guy Olivieri Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:13 AM EST

Too bad Mormons aren't big fans of web virals.

td Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM EST

This kind of self-indulgent skit only preaches to the choir (sorry for the pun). Maybe it will make the celebrities feel better about themselves, but that's about it. It's not going to change any minds because it directly takes aim at offending, ridiculing, and distorting the values of the people they would need to convince. By the way, newsflash, Prop 8 was passed by a clear majority of California voters not because a bunch of mormons and fundamentalists voted for it, but because a majority of EVERYone voted for it, including a solid majority of blacks and hispanics.

Nick Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM EST

Don't forget, snarf... it was organized religion that helped institute social change (against slavery, against racism, creating hospitals, creating univerisites). If you're going to pit this as an organized religion debate, you're going to mis-state the obvious.

Snarf Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:57 AM EST

Brilliant - unfortunatley the only thing that will change voters minds is time (social change never comes easily, especially when people throw organized religion into the mix)

Nick Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM EST

Thousands of years of a traditional understanding of marriage from a secular viewpoint which crosses religious and cultural lines, vs, a... a... a comedy sketch? Don't be so narcissistic. Prop 8 was going to pass even if none of the churches gave money, and that is because you cannot change a foundational issue by democratic vote. But if two ssa individuals want to live with each other and reserve their own rental halls and throw confetti and eat cake and recite their vows to each other and declare themselves "married", they have every right to do so. They just don't have the right to bully those who hold differing views to the point of violent acts, public nude acts, and blacklists. (Hint to Prop8naysayers: It doesn't bode well for your cause if McCarthyism is your activist blueprint).

BrandonK Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:30 AM EST

Oh my god, I thought this was so great, and it's nice to see all those Famous People taking part. I posted the link on Facebook...it's funny AND educational!

Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:29 AM EST

It wouldn't have changed most voters' minds, but I think the point of this and other protests and efforts are that it's not too late for things to change.

Clay Atlas Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:10 AM EST

Hysterical.
http://backorforth.blogspot.com

Smiller Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:07 AM EST

I saw this yesterday and laughed soo hard at work. I sent it to everyone I knew. Brilliant!

Stephen Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 09:56 AM EST

i loved this. i wish it would have come earlier. i hope many listen closely to the lyrics. marc shaiman is brilliant. he started out with bette midler.