Media In The Vietnam War

Media In The Vietnam War Throughout Americas history, the United States has won the majority of all of its major conflicts. Up until the Vietnam War, America was seen as invincible and unbeatable. At the time, television and personal audio recorders were becoming more mainstream. News by television was growing for the first time, people were turning to TV rather than the newspaper or radio to learn about current events.  [1]  The news was uncensored, and citizens, for the first time, were able to view the reality of war. Although the Vietnam War initially had the publics full support, uncensored anti-war news coverage on the newly developed commercial television influenced popular sources of entertainment, like music artists, which in turn led people to protest the war; the protests, combined with the major losses and defeats in the conflict, prompted the government to withdraw from Vietnam. The Vietnam War was a Cold War conflict that officially started on the first of November, 1955. President Lyndon B. Johnson took full advantage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which occurred in 1964; the resolution allowed the President to use conventional military power in south Asia without the approval of Congress. President Johnson used this incident as a reason to escalate troop levels in Vietnam, thus escalating the conflict.  [2]  The escalated conflict, which turned into a full-scale war, was fought between North Vietnam and its Communist allies and South Vietnam supported by anti-communist nations. The larger strategy at hand was the containment of communism. Started as a Russian revolution, the Soviets had started spreading Communism throughout the world. Although the war technically started in 1955, it wasnt until the early 1960s that US troop levels began to grow rapidly.  [3]  In 1968, the US launched the infamous Tet Offensive, an operation in which there were many casualties on both sides.  [4]  The Tet Offensive marked the period in which approval for the war started to rapidly decline which would later cause the U.S, five years later to start a peace process in which the US would eventually withdraw from Vietnam.  [5]  This peace processes ended two years later in 1975 with the capture of Saigon by North Vietnamese forces.  [6]   Although veterans sharing their experiences of war happened in any previous war, the Vietnam War was exposed much more through new technology such as television, and personal audio recorders. At the same time the Vietnam War was starting, citizens started switching where they would get their news information. A series of surveys conducted by the Roper Organization for the Television Information Office from 1964 until 1972 demonstrates the growing power of television; multiple answers allowed, respondents were asked from which medium they got most of their news, 58 percent said television; 56 percent, newspapers; 26 percent, radio; and 8 percent, magazines.  [7]  By 1972, 64 percent said television while the number of respondents who primarily relied on newspapers dropped to 50 percent.  [8]  TV was more attention-grabbing than newspapers and radio the visual element allowed user to feel as if they were in the middle of the intense battles and death. Additionally, intense vis uals helped explain the complex nature of war to Americans who might not understand the militarys technical language. Furthermore, anchors, who hosted the news programs quickly became famous in fact, Walter Croncrite, a major anchor at the time was often cited as the most trusted man in America.  [9]  This trust in the media led people to quickly believe their word as fact, clearly spreading the medias bias throughout Americas culture. When footage of the Tet Offensive started coming out in early 1968, the dominant view that the war was just was quickly flip-flopped. The media started showing more anti-war footage, with a focus on critics of the Johnson administration.  [10]  Most importantly, the footage of the My Lai massacre, where hundreds of Vietnamese were killed in cold blood by Americans, acted as a main example of why peace needed to be established.  [11]  Later on, the media focused on domestic anti-war movements, which further exemplified how the Vietnam War was unjust. Not only were Americans seeing the war in a new way, they were also seeing more casualties coming back from the front. All the way from the beginning of the war to the end, the casualty rates were rising at a constant rate. By 1968, there was an average of 1200 men who died per month in Vietnam.  [12]  Correlating with the increase in deaths at the front, more and more American soldiers were sent to Vietnam, and by 1968 over half a million troops were stationed there.  [13]  At the same time, naturally, the approval rating for then-President Lyndon B. Johnson plummeted to an all time low even as low as 35% during the Tet Offensive.  [14]  Because American approval for Johnson went steadily lower over time, it can be inferred that it was because of his actions during his time as president. Since there were so many casualties and little progress was being made in Vietnam, most people thought the war was unwinnable, which was later confirmed in 1968 by the top news anchor o f the time, Walter Cronkite.  [15]  This notion that the war was unwinnable furthered the American publics cause to end the war and bring the remaining soldiers home. This general feeling of an American demise in Vietnam eventually spread to popular entertainment and popular culture. Although the media generally spread the anti-war message, music artists picked up its caused and spread the message of peace to the younger generation. Artists such as Edwin Starr, Billy Joel and Bruce Springsteen were incredibly popular in the 1960s and early 1970s. Much of their work consisted of anti-Saigon lyrics which displayed the harsh realities of war, and explaining why our soldiers should come home. These songs and artists sparked the counter culture of the time generally knows as hippies. These peace loving people carried out the messages of these artists peace, love and respect; their main goal was the end the Vietnam War and to create peace.  [16]  This counter-culture spread rapidly, especially among young people. Because of its amazing popularity, the media covered most of youth rallies and protests, such as draft card burnings and Human-Be-Ins.  [17]  This excessive media attention spread the counter-culture even further, spreading its ideas across the Unite d States. Because more people were being aware of these acts of civil disobedience, more people were tempted to follow the crowd. As more people got caught up in the movement the number of people at the protests rose, from as little as 700 participants in 1964 to 500,000 total in 1967.  [18]  This primarily shows how an anti-war bias spread by the media found its way into popular culture, which then caused many citizens to protest the war. Even those who did not go out and protest, which was the majority of the country, regarded the Vietnam War as a mistake.  [19]   Throughout the 60s and early 70s time, American citizens were constantly fighting against American involvement in Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated every year to bring American troops back home. The number of people demonstrating kept rising as the approval rating for the war lowered exponentially every year.  [20]  As more people started demonstrating, pop-culture heavyweights, such as boxer Muhammad Ali and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. publicly endorsed peace. Not only did this lead to an increase in media coverage of the issue, but it also lead those who were fans of those public figures to become active in the fight for peace in Vietnam. Civil disobedience was on the rise more than 16 million American citizens dodged the draft by the end of the Vietnam War.  [21]  Also, in 1967, a group of flower power hippies marched on the Pentagon where they were blocked by National Guard troops, and subsequently they put flowers in their gun barrels (Appendix A).  [22]  A photographer, Bernard Norman Boston took a photo of the incident, and it became the runner up for the Pulitzer Prize that year, further broadcasting the strength of the counter-culture movement in the United States. The more media converge there was, the more people decided to join the movement for peace. The media even had a profound effect on the soldiers stationed in Vietnam; some GIs decided to resist the commands of the US army. The army in Vietnam, according to Marine Colonel Robert D. Heinl Jr., a veteran combat commander with over 27 years experience in the Marines, and the author of Soldiers Of The Sea, was on the verge of collapse: By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Sedition, coupled with disaffection from within the ranks, and externally fomented with an audacity and intensity previously inconceivable, infest the Armed Services  [23]   Not only was the army mutinous, but there were also many fragging incidents that occurred on bases. Fragging, is where there is a bounty placed upon a commanding officer, and that man is to be murdered, and whoever does it gets a monetary reward. These bounties were placed in underground army newspapers which majority of the army read.  [24]  In the year of 1970 alone, there were 209 reported fraggings.  [25]  The people responsible for the fraggings mostly got away with it too, as the armys justice system was quite corrupt: The Armys Judge Advocate Generals Corps estimated that only 10% of fragging attempts resulted in anyone going to trial..  [26]  Although there were those who took action against their superiors, there were also those who ran away. By 1970, the U.S. Army had 65,643 deserters almost four infantry divisions worth of troops.  [27]  In 1966 the desertion rate was 14.7 per thousand, in 1968 it was 26.2 per thousand, and by 1970 it had risen to 52.3 per thousand; absence without leave was so common that by the height of the war one GI went AWOL every three minutes.  [28]  From January of 67 to January of 72 a total of 354,112 GIs left their posts without permission, and at the time of the signing of the peace accords 98,324 were still missing.  [29]  The army also resisted politically, releasing underground news papers to solders. By 1972 around 300 anti-war and anti-military newspapers, with titles like Harass the Brass, All Hands Abandon Ship and Star Spangled Bummer had been published by enlisted men.  [30]  Hundreds of GIs created these papers, but their influence was far wider with thousands more who helped distribute them, and tens of thousands of readers.  [31]  They were also those determined to stop the war based on the act of sabotage; in June of 1972 the USS Ranger was apparently disabled by sabotage, and it had to return to its home base for repairs.  [32]  A movement that embodied this ideology wa s SOS Stop Our Ship. They used petitions to try and get their superiors to ground naval operations.  [33]  Even the troops, who may have had a lack of media knowledge, knew the war was wrong, and they decided to do something about it. They did all of this not only because they were saving themselves from being killed unnecessarily, but also because they knew the war which they were fighting was either not worth the fight or it was unjust. The media was the most decisive factor that drove the United States to end the war. Indirectly, they caused the public to accept that the war was unwinnable and that it would keep taking up the time and resources of the U.S. By conveying their message to popular culture artists, the media was able to target a larger audience, which was also coincidentally more active group socially. These people led protests which were both seen and heard by the national government. The media instigated these protests, displaying primarily anti-war protests on the daily news. Not only was the war being lost overseas, a battle against the government was being fought at home to end the war. Because of the constant pressure from Americas citizens and the North Vietnamese Army, the U.S decided to withdraw from Vietnam, letting Saigon fall into enemy hands, but at the same time, sparing many American lives. Although the media may have ended up tarnishing the honor of the United States with its first major loss since its creation, it stopped a cycle that would have ended up killing more American soldiers. Without the media causing an end to the war in Vietnam, the US would have been in a much worse place than it is today. Word Count: 2101

Adam Smith Wealth Nations Wealt Of Nations Summary Economics Essay

Adam Smith Wealth Nations Wealt Of Nations Summary Economics Essay In the first sentence of Wealth of Nations, Smith explained his conception of the nature of the wealth of nations. In so doing, he separated his views from those of the mercantilists and physiocrats. The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes, and which consists always either in the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations. In a number of places throughout Wealth of Nations, Smith berated the mercantilists for their concern with the accumulation of bullion and identification of bullion with the wealth of a nation. Smith believed, in fact, that most mercantilists were confused on this issue. For him, wealth was an annual flow of goods and services, not an accumulated fund of precious metals. He also revealed an understanding of a link between exports and imports, perceiving that a fundamental role of exports is to pay for imports. Furthermore, in his opening sentence he implied that the end purpose of economic activity is consumption, a position he developed more fully later in the book. This further distinguishes his economics from that of the mercantilists, who regarded production as an end in itself. Finally, in emphasizing labor as the source of the wealth of a nation, he differed from the physiocrats, who stressed land. Smith went on to suggest that the wealth of nations be measured in per capita terms. Today when it is said, for example, that England is wealthier than China, it is understood that the comparison is based not on the total output or income of the two countries but on the per capita income of the population. In essence, Smiths view has been carried forward to the present. In the same paragraph in which Smith stated that consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production, he rebuked the.mercantilists because in their system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer and because they made production, and not consumption . .. the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce. So much for the nature of the wealth of nations. The rest of Smiths book is concerned with the causes of the wealth of nations, directly or indirectlyà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬sometimes very indirectly. Book I deals with value theory, the division of labor, and the distribution of income; Book II with capital as a cause of the wealth of nations. Book III studies the economic history of several nations in order to illustrate the theories presented earlier. Book IV is a history of economic thought and practice that examines mercantilism and physiocracy. Book V covers what today would be called public finance. Causes of the Wealth of Nations Smith held that the wealth of a nation, what we today call the income of a nation, depends upon (1) the productivity of labor and (2) the proportion of laborers who are usefully or productively employed. Because he assumed that the economy will automatically achieve full employment of its resources, he examined only those forces that determine the capacity of the nation to produce goods and services. Productivity of labor. What determines the productivity of the labor force? In Book I, Smith stated that the productivity of labor depends upon the division of labor. It is an observed fact that specialization and division of labor increase the productivity of labor. This had been recognized long before the publication of Wealth of Nations, but no writer emphasized the principle as Smith did. In our modern economyà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬even in the academic worldà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬division of labor is widely practiced, with notable influence on productivity. Smith illustrated the advantages of specialization and division of labor by borrowing from past literature an example that measured output per worker in a factory producing straight pins. When each worker performs every operation required to produce a pin, output per worker is very low; but if the production process is divided into a number of separate operations, with each worker specializing in one of these operations, a large incre ase in output per worker occurs. In Smiths example, when the process is divided into eighteen distinct operations, output per worker increases from twenty pins per day to forty-eight hundred. It is interesting that although Smith recognized the economic benefits of specialization and division of labor, he also perceived some serious social costs. One social disadvantage of the division of labor is that workers are given repetitious tasks that soon become monotonous. Human beings become machines tied to a production process and are dehumanized by the simple, repetitive, boring tasks they perform. But Smith had no doubt that human welfare is, on balance, increased by the division of labor. The division of labor, in turn, depends upon what Smith called the extent of the market and the accumulation of capital. The larger the market, the greater the volume that can be sold and the greater the opportunity for division of labor. A limited market, on the other hand, permits only limited division of labor. The division of labor is limited by the accumulation of capital because the production process is time-consuming: there is a time lag between the beginning of production and the final sale of the finished product. In a simple economy in which each household produces all of its own consumption needs and the division of labor is slight, very little capital is required to maintain (feed, clothe, house) the laborers during the production process. As the division of labor is increased, laborers no longer produce goods for their own consumption, and a stock of consumer goods must exist to maintain the laborers during the time-consuming production process. This stock of goods comes from saving and is, in this context, what Smith called capital. A major function of the capitalist is to provide the means for bridging the gap between the time when production begins and the time when the final product is sold. Thus, the extent to which production processes requiring division of labor may be used is limited by the amount of capital accumulation available. Smith therefore concluded: As the accumulation of stock must, in the nature of things, be previous to the division of labour, so labour can be more and more subdivided in proportion only as stock is previously more and more accumulated. Productive and unproductive labor. The accumulation of capital, according to Smith, also determines the ratio between the number of laborers who are productively employed and those who are not so employed. Smiths attempt to distinguish between productive and unproductive labor became confused and reflected normative or value judgments on his part. However, it manifests an awareness of the problem of economic growth. Labor employed in producing a vendible commodity is productive labor, Smith held, whereas labor employed in producing a service is unproductive. As an advocate of the changing social and economic order, he postulated that the activities of the capitalists, which resulted in an increased output of real goods, were beneficial to economic growth and development, whereas the expenditures of the landowners for servants and other intangible goods were wasteful. A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers: he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servant s.10 According to Smith, what is true of the individual is true for the nation; thus, for the economy as a whole, the larger the share of the labor force involved in producing tangible real goods, the greater the wealth of the nation. Capital is required to support the productive labor force; therefore, the greater the capital accumulation, the larger the proportion of the total labor force involved in productive labor. Capitals are increased by parsimony, and diminished by prodigality and misconduct. This distinction between productive and unproductive labor also affected Smiths view of the role of the government in the economy. Just as the expenditures of the landowning class for servants and other forms of unproductive labor are detrimental to economic development, so is some part of government expenditures. The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers.12 Smith insisted that the highest rates of economic growth would be achieved by distributing large incomes to the capitalists, who save and invest, and low incomes to the landlords, who spend for menial servants and who leave nothing behind them in return for their consumption.13 Furthermore, because economic growth is inhibited by government spending for unproductive labor, it is better to have less government and, consequently, lower taxes on the capitalists so that they may accumulate more capital.

Chimpanzee Essay -- essays research papers

Chimpanzee The acts of cannibalism and infanticide are very apparent in the behavior of the chimpanzee. Many African studies show that wild chimpanzees kill and eat infants of their own species. (Goodall, 1986:151) Although there is not a clear answer why chimps engage in this very violent and sometimes gruesome behavior there are many ideas and suggestions. This essay will deal with chimpanzee aggression, cannibalism and infanticide. This paper will present information on major research studies performed in Africa and analyze how and why this strange behavior occurs in a commonly thought peaceful primate. Wild chimpanzees(Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) are known to kill and eat mammals in various parts of Africa. Monkeys were recorded to be consumed in the Gombe National Park, the Kasakati Basin, and the Budongo Forest. Moreover, there is new evidence that chimpanzees near the Ugalla River of western Tanzania also consume mammals.(Riss, 1990:167) Cannibalism has also been recorded both in the Budongo Forest, Mahale Mountains and the Gombe National Park. In Jane Goodall's, May 1979 article in the National Geographic called "Life and Death at Gombe" it reveals the first time that chimpanzees who were always perceived to be playful, gentle monkeys, could suddenly become dangerous killers. "I knew that some of our chimpanzees, so gentle for the most part, could on occasion become savage killers, ruthless cannibals, and that they had their own form of primitive warfare."(Goodall, 1979:594) To try and explain this ruthless behavior it is necessary to first analyze their social upbringing and unique lifestyle. The Chimpanzee society is clearly a male dominated aggressive social unit. Males are larger than females, they are more openly aggressive, and they fight more often. (Holloway, 1974:261) These fights can look extremely fierce and the victim screams loudly. But it is rare for a fight between community members to last longer than quarter of a minute, and it is even more unusual for such a fight to result in serious injury.(Goodall, 1992:7) Many fights break out suddenly. Afterwards the loser of the fight, even though clearly fearful of the aggressor, will alm... ...s been no evidence revealing why chimpanzees act and behave in this cannibalistic fashion. There are many theories and ideas but like the theory of evolution there is no one clear answer. Being the closest living relative to the human being, chimpanzees exhibit complicated and intricate behavior due to their advanced brains.(Zuckerman, 1932:171) This paper has revealed that chimpanzees are creatures of great extremes: aggressive one moment, peaceful the next. This gruesome violent behavior can actually be linked to a similarity with human beings. It is widely accepted in the scientific community that chimpanzees are the closest human relatives we have. If we are indeed superior to these primates, does it not stand to reason that humans should be able to learn from this violence and avoid it? Jane Goodall, in her article labeled, "Life and Death at Gombe" draws a similar conclusion: It is sobering that our new awareness of chimpanzee violence compels us to acknowledge that these ape cousins of ours are even more similar to humans than we thought before.

Marketing Is Marketing :: essays research papers

Introduction: â€Å"Marketing is marketing, irrespective of the product or marketplace†. This is a theme common to many introductory marketing texts and degree courses. The two most common exceptions cited to this proposition are buying behavior models between consumers and business buyers and the extended ingredients of the services marketing mix. While the overall sentiments of marketing hold true across product and market boundaries, perhaps the differences are in fact more marked? Intends to spark some discussion pertaining to the extent to which marketers can safely generalize when discussing the nature and characteristics of marketing. Are we correct in offering students and in-company training program generalizations that cut across the marketing domain? Are we doing justice to the core nuances if we simply draw out the variations between consumer goods, services, industrial and business-to-business marketing? Is there a different perspective that should, in the new millennium, be th e focus of textbooks and marketing courses? Content Indicators: readability, Practice implications, originality, Research Implications* Marketing is marketing, irrespective of the product or marketplace. This is a theme common to many introductory marketing texts and courses. The two most common exceptions cited to this proposition are buying behavior models between consumers and business buyers and the extended ingredients of the services marketing mix (cf. Dibb et al., 1997; Kotler, 1998). While the overall sentiments of marketing hold true across product and market boundaries, perhaps the differences are in fact more marked? The marketers of services were the first to â€Å"speak out†, arguing that the nature of marketing is different owing to the basic characteristics of services:  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  intangibility;  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  direct organization-client relationship;  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  consumer participation in the production process; and  ·Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Complexity. The upshot for services marketers has been the extension of the marketing mix from the classical product, price, place (channel) and promotion â€Å"4Ps† to include at least people, physical evidence (ambience) and process. These marketers also point to the characteristics of services, notably intangibility of the service â€Å"product†, restricting opportunities for creating a differential advantage over competitors, with the inevitable dependence for differentiation and competitive edge on branding initiatives and personnel. While services marketers have outlined significant differences for â€Å"their marketing†, on the whole, texts and marketers have argued there are relatively only minor differences between the marketing of consumer goods and industrial or business-to-business goods. This paper is intended to spark some discussion pertaining to the extent to which marketers can safely generalize when discussing the nature and characteristics of industrial, business-to-business marketing.

Drug and Crime Prevention Essay

The purpose of the Final Project is for you to demonstrate your understanding of crime prevention programs and the role crime prevention plays in the overall criminal justice system. You may select a crime prevention program that addresses law enforcement, the courts, or corrections; or it may be a comprehensive program that addresses all three. The program may address the adult justice system, juvenile justice systems, or both. For the purposes of this assignment assume, you are preparing a proposal to a city, county, or state governmental body to recommend the implementation of a crime prevention program within their jurisdiction. You need to demonstrate the value of the crime prevention program and its effectiveness in reducing crime thus reducing the overall costs to the jurisdiction or building value that improves the effectiveness of crime prevention to the community justifying the additional expenditures. Your proposal will include: 1. A summary of the jurisdiction (i.e., city, county, or state) and the portion of the criminal justice System your proposal is designed to address. 2. An analysis of the current trends from three comparable cities in population size, utilizing the SARA Model and the Crime Analysis Triangle. (Note: Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps , Steps 7 and 8). You will compare the data from three comparable jurisdictions and compare it to national data. 3. A determination of the appropriate crime prevention strategy for the jurisdiction based on this analysis. 4. A review of academic literature and studies on the various crime prevention programs to address the needs of the community. How does the crime prevention program address social justice issues†¦ To download this material Click this link – https://bitly.com/1wyPezy There is no one to clean up after you and cook healthy meals at college. Some indulgences are okay, but still maintain a nutritious diet, get proper sleep, and take care of yourself and your possessions. Take care of yourself well, study appropriately, attend all your classes and follow a regular schedule. You can get ill from being too stressed or not eating healthy enough.

Health Problems as a Result of Environmental Crisis Essay

Given that I work in an Emergency Department, the usual encounters we have involves health problems. However, in the past months and last year, people that we encounter are those of with fever and flu. Some diseases were also frequent. Diseases that arouse were usually an effect of a downfall in body’s immune system. This has happened when the extreme changes in environmental climate took place. As a result of the fast growing effects of global warming, the weather has extreme changes within a day. The extreme cold and hot weather that occurs in twenty-four hours has a bad effect on body temperature. The tremendous  Ã‚   changes weaken the body since the type of climate that occurs does not match the survival qualifications of human. In order to be involved in this issue, I suggest that the Emergency Department lead a program awareness to fight global warming, deal with its effects, and how to be healthy during the experience of its effects. On the other hand, I can be of help to if I encourage friends and families to practice activities or home choirs that will help lessen climate change. Like, use products with Energy Star seal, this is product lessen greenhouse effect and air pollution. Also, saving energy thru maintenance and cleaning of heating and cooling equipments used in our homes. I can also save energy by using green power, where the energy is from the sun and the wind. Frugality not just in money can help deal with climate change. For example, recycling materials we use at home   and buying new stuff as a product of recycling. Another way to conserve energy is by taking public transportation in routinely going to work or school. Or maintaining the efficiency of your car so it will not emit high amounts of greenhouse emissions. In offices, power management features should be discussed with the employees especially those workers who operate machineries. With this adjustments in our daily lives, we can help fight climate change and also save the world. Reference Climate Change – What You Can Do. January 28, 2008 retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/office.html   

Gay Marriage Persuasive Essay

When taken at face value, many Americans would not think that forbidding gay couples to marry affects them. What many fail to recognize is that these kinds of discriminatory laws reach out and touch every life in this country. For a nation to intentionally and blatantly tell one group of people that they are not entitled to the same rights and protections as other groups of people sheds a dark shadow on the rest of the nation. If the government can interfere so wholeheartedly into the lives of those it is supposed to serve, then none of us are safe.Very few people actually understand why gay marriage is an issue. The overwhelming trends of â€Å"changing values†, abandoning religion, and the adaptation of new lifestyles have brought this issue to the forefront. So, if everyone is so against gay â€Å"marriage†, the nation needs to extend the rights of marriage to gays, even if it means that it needs to be done under a different title. The Legislative Branch is responsib le for making the laws which govern the country. It is never possible to please all of the people, but fairness is always an option.While the traditionalists and religious majority are claiming that â€Å"Marriage is a holy union between a man and a women with vows taken before god† (â€Å"Same Sex Marriage? â€Å"); the government needs to find a position somewhere in the middle of protecting the traditional marriage, and allowing for equal rights and protections for all of its citizens. When the government stepped in and became a part of â€Å"marriage†, they essentially needed to remove the religious aspects of it in order to adhere to the long standing policy of â€Å"separation of church and state†.This was never done, and because it was never a problem, it has remained a government/religious union that many felt the need to protect because of the religious attachments. Well, it is a problem now. There are hundreds of thousands of American citizens being denied rights and protections because while they are a strong and powerful part of our population, they are still heavily outnumbered by the religious majority seeking to protect the institution of marriage.To see what must be done by the legislature to right the wrongs done by anti-gay legislation, one must understand the history of this battle and the causes for the recent influx of gay marriage supporters. This battle has been raging since the 1970’s when gay individuals first started questioning why they were not allowed to get married. At that time, most reasoned that they (gays) would just go away, that they were just looking to have the wedding, but cared little about actually being married.No one could have guessed that forty years later, the â€Å"gay† population would be doubled in size, the American idea of the â€Å"traditional family† would be drastically changed, the religious majority would be experience a major power shift, and that our supreme c ourt would be hearing these cases on a regular basis. If one were to ask the opponents of gay marriage how we got to where we are today, they would likely respond with some kind of comment regarding the demise of the traditional family, or how integrative teaching has changed the expectations of marriage (Sharp 71).Those with a more liberal view may state that, throughout the years, science has opened the eyes of many to be more understanding of homosexuality and may therefore link it to a better tolerance for progressive ideas towards gay marriage (Bornman 30-33). The increase in the size of the â€Å"gay community† has made this an issue that must be addressed. In the 1970’s when the gay marriage debate began, it was fueled mainly by gay males, and lesbian females only. Since then, the â€Å"gay community† has increased to include gay men, lesbian women, bisexual men and women, and the transgendered community.The additions of these groups to the supporters of gay marriage, has called for a numbers increase of great magnitude. An example of this increase can be shown based on statistical data (still widely viewed as an estimate only) obtained by the Williams Institute at the UCLA school of law; in 2011 there 9 million (3. 5% of the population) that identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender. When this number is broken down, it is reported that only 1. 7% of this 3. 5% are identified as gay men or lesbian women (Gates 1). That is less than half of the people.This increase has led to stronger lobbying and more strength in numbers. The legislature cannot simply ignore the needs and wants of 3. 5% of the American population. Another significant cause of this increase in support for gay marriage can only be described in â€Å"the changing times†. (Sharp 71) History has shown that conservative attitudes have changed dramatically throughout the years. Just looking at the basic ways of life for example can attest to the change in a ttitudes. In the 1950’s life was centered around the family.The wife stayed home, cooked, cleaned, and tended to the children. There were various images of the â€Å"perfect housewife† plastered all over the media- a smiling perfectly kept woman waiting at the door wearing an apron and holding a steaming hot turkey on a platter all while kissing her husband as he walks through the door from a hard day’s work. That was the image of the family that was portrayed and lived. Divorce was rare and those leading any lifestyle other than the mainstream norm, were frowned upon and shunned from communities. Obviously this is not the picture of life today.More mothers are working outside of the home. The term â€Å"latchkey kids† is now the norm. Divorce rates are at an all-time high, with single mothers never having been married to their children’s fathers being considered normal. Obviously the American opinion of family and normal has changed, thus changing the opinions of who can be a normal family as well. A very concerning concept is that a vast majority of the groups that are fighting to keep the ban on gay marriage, are traditionalists and religious based groups. (â€Å"Same Sex Marriage?†)As a country founded to escape religious persecution, it is highly concerning that in 2011, the opinions of the religious majority are still governing our nation. According to the U. S. Census Bureau, the percentage of the population identifying as â€Å"Christian, Catholic, Baptist, or Protestant† (the four largest religious groups in the nation) has declined from 86% in 1990, to 76% in 2008 (U. S. Census 2011 61). In addition to this, the percentages identifying as â€Å"No religion, Atheist, or Agnostic† increased from 8% in 1990, to 15% in 2008 (U. S. Census 2011 61).It can be speculated that based on the above mentioned â€Å"rule by the religious majority†, that the decline in religious individuals in America, coupled with the rise of those claiming to carry no religious beliefs, has helped the trend of supporters for gay marriage increase. An important fact that needs to be established is that gay marriage is not illegal. Each individual state has the right to create laws to govern their people. Throughout the years as couples attempted to secure marriage licenses that would recognize their same sex partnerships, states began passing statutes that define marriage as a union between man and woman.Some states determined long ago that it was wrong to discriminate and therefore, they should allow gays to be married. (â€Å"National Conference of State Legislatures†) Other states have given the title â€Å"domestic partnership† or â€Å"civil union† to the union between same sex couples. This will allow them to be placed on the same insurance policies and even in some cases file state taxes together, but little other benefits are afforded to these types of unions, and the big question is â€Å"why are these unions allowed but only under a different title? †. This calls to question the obvious. Why are the gays fighting for marriage?Some states recognize it, so they can just go there and get married (or participate in a civil union ceremony) then go home to their states and live their lives. It makes sense in theory but the big problem is that while these states have taken the steps to allow equal protections to all of their citizens, the federal government refuses to recognize these marriages- essentially rendering them invalid. It is because of this, that the solution must lie in the hands of the Federal Government, if they do not make the change, then any change made will be insignificant and superficial at best.In 1993 the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that denying marriage to same sex couples was unconstitutional. Uproar spread throughout the country as fear grew that this ruling would open the floodgates allowing gay marriage to be legal everywhere. As a precautionary move, in 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into legislation. This put a federal ban on gay marriage, and is really where the battle begins. (â€Å"National Conference of State Legislatures†) In 2009 at the 111th congress, a bill was entered as a proposal to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.This act was called the Respect for Marriage Act. After some bureaucratic push and pull, in March 2011, this act was signed into legislation- officially ending the government’s long standing ban on state recognized same sex marriage. (â€Å"National Conference of State Legislatures†) While this act does not directly legalize or recognize gay marriage at the federal level, it does take away the only standing legal defense that federal courts were able to use in the many cases waged to allow gay couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples.It is a move in the right direction for lawmakers to finally end the decades long discrimination of gay individuals and couples. While the apparent causes for the influx in gay marriage support is obvious, those not involved in the battle should understand why it is an issue that needs to be solved. Marriage is not only a union made between two people, but it comes with several rights and â€Å"rewards† that are afforded only to married couples. There is the obvious tax break that is available to those filing â€Å"Married† on their federal income tax returns.The amount of money varies greatly depending on income, but it is a financial break nonetheless. There is also the issue of insurance, both health and life. While most states allow those in â€Å"domestic partnerships† to be placed on each other’s insurance, this is not guaranteed by all states and in all circumstances. This means that a gay couple cannot be on each other’s insurance. There are also issues of parenting and adoption. Each state has a different variety of laws, though some do not allow those not married to become adoptive parents.A very large and concerning issue is that of Social Security Survivor Benefits. If a man or woman works all of their lives and pays into the Social Security system and then dies, the money is left to no one because the Federal Government refuses to accept the legal marriages performed in individual states. (â€Å"Center For American Progress†) According to the Center for American Progress, there is a total of â€Å"1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.† (â€Å"Center For American Progress†)That is a total of 1,138 rights and benefits that require a legal marriage to be considered; which is also a total of 1,138 rights and benefits currently being denied to American citizens. The effects are obviously endless, and the solution should be obvious. To properly come up with a solution to this problem, the government must look at the opinions of the majority, coupled with the rights of the minority and find a happy medium.If the government removed all ties to the term â€Å"marriage†, it would then be enabling the religious majority to continue protecting the â€Å"holy union† they so desperately feel the need to protect. This solution would require very little funding, or extreme measures, rather would just take some tricky new wording of the laws to cast a new shadow of fairness upon the nation. This idea makes plenty of sense when you break it down. In order for any man and women to legally be married, they must go to the clerk of court for their locality, and obtain a marriage license.This marriage license is a legal document signed by an employee of a government agency, therefore making marriage a government institution instead of a religious one. There is no currently no requirement that makes it mandatory to g et married in a church, or by a member of a church, which goes to reason that a couple can be married without their union being religious. So the government must then decide, do we strip the traditionalists and religious groups of their â€Å"holy union† and create an uproar which will no doubt further clog the courts with cases seeking a repeal?Or should we remove our ties to this union and create our own union that is available to all citizens and would therefore afford them all of the protections and benefits of being â€Å"married†. When it is put this way, the answer is obvious. The federal government can rearrange the terminology of the laws in place today and replace all of the use of the term â€Å"marriage† with a new term. It could be â€Å"civil union† for example. This would, in turn, allow all men and women in the United States to enter into this type of union, and be protected by all laws that â€Å"marriage† currently affords to thos e married.The traditionalists and religious individuals that want to desperately protect the â€Å"sanctity of marriage† can still do so without having any infringement on their religious beliefs. They can still participate in marriage ceremonies but instead of picking up a â€Å"marriage license† they would need to also obtain a â€Å"civil union license† in order to have their marriage protected by the government. While this idea may put most of the opposition at bay by allowing them to keep their â€Å"marriage†, others who were not previously opposed to gay marriage might consider it too much of a change.For a country that has been â€Å"getting married† for hundreds of years, it is unreasonable to expect all of the people to suddenly change their way of thinking. To start having â€Å"civil union planners† instead of â€Å"wedding planners†, for example, is just asking too much of the people. The government must then ask the peop le, â€Å"is asking the American people to change their normal ways of thinking to allow for their fellow men and women to be treated fairly under the law really asking too much? † When it is a matter of something being too hard, or too much change; individual rights and freedoms should always come first.Our constitution was drafted in such a way to allow for future leaders to change or amend it as the changing needs of the nation are being met. There was a time when women were not allowed to vote. It had to be a big change for the people to suddenly change everything into such a way that would allow women to vote. There were times when whites were allowed to keep segregated from blacks and to deny blacks the use of public institutions. Laws were written to change these practices as well. People fought and died over the implementation of this new legislation, but it was put in place nonetheless.The government has asked a lot more of the people in regards to changing popular w ays of thinking, and all was done in the name of equality. In 2011 this should be an easy task to accomplish. As stated earlier in this essay, times have changed, views are more liberal. Yes it will be an adjustment, but it will be one that will benefit all people eventually. The ideas as to why gay marriage has now become an issue in the forefront of American politics are endless. The effects of the constant denial of rights to American citizen are obvious and in devastating numbers.There is a plausible solution to the problem that will protect not only the wants, but the needs of several different groups of citizens. The resolution of those against it is so strong, as is that of those that carry favorable beliefs. The government has taken steps- both large and small to afford more protections to more people, but it hasn’t been enough. There needs to be new laws written, ones that can allow for all people to feel as though they are American and deserve American freedom. Stud ies have been done, research compiled, statistics published, and only one answer has been derived. Gay marriage is an issue, and it will not go away.