copyright © 2003 by Robert L. Blau

Special to the Daily Dishrag - On June 26, 2003, the United States struck down the Texas statute prohibiting certain sexual relations between people of the same sex.  In the aftermath of this decision, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced his support for a "Defense of Marriage" amendment to the United States Constitution.  The following is an exclusive interview of Senator Frist by Daily Dishrag reporter Brian Beegle.

Brian Beegle:  Senator, is it true that you support the "Defense of Marriage" amendment because of the recent Supreme Court decision on the Texas Sodomy law?

Sen. Bill Frist:  Yes, Brian.  That's one reason.  As my friend and fellow zealot, Rick Santorum, says, "We have now laid the framework for rewriting marriage statutes across the country."

BB:  But the decision didn't validate same-sex marriage.  It just prohibited the state from legislating on sexual behavior between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.

BF:  First comes sex, then comes marriage.  Next thing you know, they'll want equal protection under the law.  Just you watch, Brian.

BB:  You also said the Supreme Court decision could condone criminal activity in the home.

BF:  Right.  They just condoned deviant sexual behavior.  What additional proof could you ask?

BB:  You said, "to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."   So, you wouldn't want government to impinge on people's privacy?

BF:  I didn't say that.  I said I don't want the courts doing it.  The state legislature is the perfect institution for invading people's privacy.  The Supreme Court overstepped their authority by interfering in state business.

BB:  So, you wouldn't want to interfere in state prerogatives, like the same-sex marriage legislation in Vermont?

BF:  No, Brian, that's entirely different.  It has to be overturned.  That's why we're working on the "Defense of Marriage" amendment.

BB:  How is it different, Senator?

BF:  I'm against same-sex marriages.  You're a little thick, Brian.

BB:  Well, how about Florida?  When the US Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court following the 2000 presidential election, was that interfering with state business?

BF:  Again, entirely different circumstances, Brian.  You are thick!  How else were we supposed to get our guy in the White House?

BB:  Ah.  So, as reactionary as this Supreme Court is, it isn't reactionary enough for you.  Is that fair to say?

BF:  We don't use the "R" word.

BB:  Let's talk about the "Defense of Marriage" amendment, which defines "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman.  Why do you support this amendment?

BF:  As I have said before, I feel that marriage is a sacrament.

BB:  Um, "sacrament" is a religious term.  The US Constitution is usually interpreted to provide for the separation of Church and State.  Is there any precedent for providing constitutional protection for sacraments?

BF:  No, Brian, and that's why I also support the "Defense of Sacraments" amendment.

BB:  That's very interesting, Senator.  I believe a general definition of "sacrament" is "an outward sign of inward grace instituted by Jesus Christ for our sanctification."

BF:  That's good, Brian.  Do you have an extra pencil?  I want to write that down for the amendment.

BB:  "Sacrament" is a specifically Christian concept.  How do you think non-Christians would feel about this amendment?

BF:  Who cares?  I'm introducing another amendment, the "Christian Nation" amendment, which declares in no uncertain terms that this is a Christian nation.

BB:  Is any Christian denomination more Christian than another?

BF:  Ha, ha!  Of course not.  But we'll be watching.

BB:  Back to sacraments.  I believe there is some difference of opinion as to what things are sacraments.  The Catholics define seven: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints pretty much sticks to one, basically the eucharist thing.

BF:  Well, I'm a Presbyterian.

BB:  And according to the Book of Order, the Constitution of the US Presbyterian Church, there are two:  Baptism and the Lord's Supper.  Marriage isn't actually listed as a sacrament.  So, which way is the "Defense of Sacraments" amendment going to go?

BF:  The more, the merrier, I say.

BB:  Very good, Senator.  But I must say that there seems to be some conflict between your amendments and the Bill of Rights.  Do you have any comment on that?

BF:  There is, indeed, conflict, and that's why I'm supporting a repeal of the Bill of Rights.  Except for the right to carry arms, of course.  So, after repeal, it will just be the Bill of Right.  You get to have guns.  That's it.  But all those silly "First Amendment Rights" will be replaced by the far more godly "Frist Amendment Rights."

BB:  What about the Supreme Court, Senator?  Do you have any suggestions for improving that?

BF:  Glad you asked, Brian.  I'm supporting the "Supreme Leader" amendment to take care of that.  The "Supreme Leader" amendment would replace the Supreme Court with a single expert who would interpret constitutional law and scripture, control the armed forces, appoint the President, and, in general, act as God's Regent on Earth.  This amendment has been nicknamed the "Vali-e Faqih" amendment.  I'm not sure why.

BB:  So, who would appoint - or elect? - the Supreme Leader?

BF:  God.  I thought that was clear.