Redefining marriage–-a relationship between people of the opposite sex–to include relationships by those of the same sex is as unfounded as redefining the meaning of a sedan to include a truck. Or like redefining taking a bath to include taking a shower. Yet for some issues in this country, they defy logic.

There is something fundamentally different between a relationship of opposite sexes and those of the same. Similarly, there is something fundamentally different between a sedan and a truck. Anyone who admits to the fundamental difference between a sedan and a truck yet deny the difference between same and opposite sex relationships is in denial at best or a political hack at worst. In the former, they are both forms of transportation but because of their fundamental difference they are categorized differently. In the latter, they are both relationships, but because a marriage is already between individuals of the opposite sexes, Gays must call theirs something else.

Marriage is a relationship between individuals of the opposite sex. If Gays want a similar institution, call it something else. As a Christian, I know that not everyone believes in God or even hopes to go to Heaven. Therefore, I am not saying that Gays should not be allowed to share in the benefits provided by the State. What I am saying is that Marriage is taken.

There are many things out there that share a similar underlying principle. With same and opposite sex relationships there is love, partnership, trust, commitment etc. However, similar underlying principles do not mean they have to share the same name. If so, then all forms of transportation would be called a sedan; all bodies of water called an ocean, right down to the pool in your backyard. We would tell people we are going to take a shower only to be found laying in the tub with bubbles. We must not redefine marriage to include Gay relationships if we believe in clarity. I must be able to ask my kids “when do you plan to get married?” and if they are Gay they should be able to respond, never dad but I plan to……

The point that I hope to impress upon my readers is that I have no problem with people who do not believe in God seeking the benefits and provisions afforded by the State. The benefits and provisions afforded by the State are simply benefits. They are not what marriage is. Marriage is distinctly a relationship between a man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony. If the State can afford to redefine its laws– like common law– and can afford to provide similar benefits to those of the same sex, have at it. Those laws and benefits are not what marriage is. Marriage is a relationship between individuals of the opposite sex. We should not stand idly by and permit the redefining of a distinct institution simply because individuals want the benefits provided by the State.

If you ask Gays what they really want they will tell you they want their relationships to share the backing and security of the State. At no point have they said that their relationship is the same as those of opposite sexes. People must understand that marriage transcends the formation of the United States and thus any marriage law or provision. If they do, then would they understand why the distinct definition of marriage can and must be preserved while Civilly extend similar provisions to Gays.

My contention is very simple. A relationship between those of the opposite sex is fundamentally different from those of same sex. It is fallacious to define things that are fundamentally different as the same. On one hand, there are the benefits provided by the State and on the other hand, there is marriage. Destroying and redefining marriage because some seek State benefits and provisions is something no one should sit idly by and permit if they believe in clarity.

Much has been said over the last 60+ days regarding this terrible disaster that has occurred in the Gulf. Everyone it seems has a different opinion on who is responsible and what someone should have been doing but did not do. Regardless of how we feel about this incident and the response by both BP and this administration, one thing is clear, it vindicates Bush.

Many in the media have already said that this is Obama’s Katrina. While some have admitted that it is, others have avoided saying the obvious. But we know the truth.

I believe this issue vindicates Bush for a few reasons. When Katrina occurred, the despicable tactic from those on the Left and in the media was to suggest that Government was quick, efficient, and effective; but because the president was a Republican who wanted to prove that government was slow and inefficient, he (Bush) deliberately responded in a slow and inefficient way, which was the reason why the people in LA were suffering. They then topped that off by claiming that Bush hated black people, which allowed his slow response to come more naturally.

All this and more they said to perpetuate the myth that an obese Federal Government entangled by its own fat of red, blue, yellow and green tape can move as fast as a Government should, if it was instead slim, trim, efficient and effective. Only a liberal can make the case concerning government that the more peripheral activities it amasses the more efficient it becomes. Outside of government, a father does not add more things to his to-do list for work when he wants to spend more time with his wife and kids. This is not only true for a father but it is also true for everything else. One never becomes more efficient at their core by increasing the peripheral. It is illogical, yet if you tell that to a liberal regarding government, they will faint outrage and say you want no government.

As I turn on my television and continue to see oil spewing into the Gulf I am tempted to join with other and faint outrage that Obama’s administration is moving slow or is failing to get on top of this issue, but I choose not to. The reason why, is because I know that this is the actual pace of Big Government. There is nothing slow about Obama’s response. There is no need for him to get “black” and “angry” as some have suggested. There was also nothing slow about Bush’s response. The speed at which Government moved with Bush and the speed at which it is moving with Obama is top speed.

Most of us remember Exxon Valdez or we read about it. Much of what we are hearing from the Left concerning BP was also said about Exxon. How we need more Government because we cannot depend on for-profit corporations to look out for the people and our environment. In the heat of the moment Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act which clearly states that “the Federal government is required to direct all public and private response efforts for certain types of spill events; Area Committees — composed of federal, state, and local government officials — must develop detailed, location-specific Area Contingency Plans; and owners or operators of vessels and certain facilities that pose a serious threat to the environment must prepare their own Facility Response Plans.” All we have been hearing from the Keith Olberman’s and the Rachel Maddow’s of the world is the fact that these oil companies drilling in the Gulf did not have a plan to respond to this disaster. That is in fact true. However, according to government’s own laws where they made themselves responsible for responding to such disasters, they also have no plan. Where is the governments plan? If the government is going to amass more and more power and responsibility, then it must be able to respond; it clearly is over its head on this and many other issues.

From a Capitalistic perspective, come to think of it, the Oil Pollution Act may also be the reason why oil companies did not deem it necessary to invest in the technologies necessary to respond to a disaster. Think about it; according to the Act, their responsibility was financial reimbursements. If you were told to just have the money in the bank to pay the maid for coming out to clean your home, would you invest in a vacuum? Who would? Is this another possible unforeseen consequence of government regulation?

There is a saying that goes; if you say something to yourself repeatedly, you will eventually believe it. Most liberal were told that there is nothing stopping government if liberals are in charge and the only reason our government has failed us in the past was because Republicans who don’t have at heart the success of government were in control.

The people believed and elected the person who described the response to Katrina in terms like “unconscionable ineptitude”. The person who said “we’re gonna have to do some hard thinking about how we could have failed our fellow citizens so badly, and how we will prevent such a failure from ever occurring again.” This is the person who promised, “the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur.” Yes, we elected Barack Obama.

Now that they have a catastrophe on their hands, the Left will not tell you that Government is responsible for response. They have left the onus on BP and are trying to blame the predecessor and say that this is just another Obama inheritance. Is it really? Even if it is, that only explains what led to the rupture in the Gulf. Obama is still left with explaining why the response of government is more in line with the actual slow and inept speed of an obese Federal Government that we have seen time and again and far below the high expectations set by liberals as to what government is able to do with liberals in charge.

As we celebrate the worship of the creation rather than the Creator–Earth Day–I could not help thinking of yet another issue on which the Republican Party is tone deaf. The leadership is seemingly incapable of clearly explaining that though they do not believe in man-made global warming they do agree that we have a duty to be good stewards of the environment. Instead of making that distinction and taking that stand, they have altogether abandoned the environmental issue.

At the heart of the Green Revolution, there are two separate issues: the need to preserve and protect our environment and our resources and the agenda of the Communist Fascist Left whose objective is to “control” but not “own the means of production.”

We have always understood Communism from the perspective of “owning and controlling the means of production.” While we were asleep with this definition, the Communist evolved. In hindsight, it is no longer feasible nor was it even wise to own the means of production. The New-Left—the evolved Communist– have rightfully realized that property rights means being able to do with your property as you wish. Thus, their intent is not to own it; rather control our ability to use what is—or was—ours. In usurping the Green Revolution with cap and trade and global warming, their intent is to exert total control of every aspect of the world’s means of production without ever having to own it. This is the Left’s endgame when they guilt the world into thinking that we are causing global warming and the only way to preserve our Earth and our existence is to give them the authority and control.

The need to preserve and protect our environment and its resources is the legitimate cause of our generation. It has been usurped by the Left who have a different agenda and the Republican Party only emboldens the Left by abandoning this legitimate aspects of the cause. Green is not only universal, it saves people money. Appropriate use of water, recycling, energy efficient equipment, ensuring that your doors and windows are properly sealed etc. all save the average American household hundred’s of dollars every year. We do these things because it is wise; not because the Earth is in need of saving.

Do I believe in climate change? Of course I do. Pre-Ice Age, the Earth experienced climate change that brought about the ice. Post-Ice Age, the Earth also experienced another climate change that created the atmosphere that we currently enjoy. The debate is not whether climate change occurs; rather what contributed to a 1° uptake? In light of what the Earth has previously gone through prior to the SUV’s and fossil fuels, I am reluctant to be alarmed by 1° uptake in global temperatures that has remained steady since 2008.

The deceit of Climate-gate, where we learned about the lengths to which the Left would go to create the fear necessary to give them control over all of the world’s means of production was squandered because the Republicans failed to ever have a strategy to be on the offensive of any debate. The Republicans failure to act on this issue has allowed the Left to dust themselves off, when they should have instead lost all credibility. Those of us who believe in preserving our Environment but do not believe in the global warming disaster scenario need a voice. However, I am afraid the Republicans are so clueless they don’t even know we exist.