Historically, social movements have, in most cases, provoked political uprisings and thereby changed state laws and policies for the benefit of every citizen. Similar to any other legislative reform, that regarding the approval of “same-sex marriage” upon arrival. But because of political institutions, there are different ways of looking at this law reform. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay This article will show the perspectives of rational choice institutionalism and historical institutionalism in the case of same-sex marriage. On the one hand, rational choice will prove that human rights are taken into account much more to the extent that they offer maximum benefits to everyone, and on the other hand, it will show that the historical approach is determined by moral values ​​leading to no change in society, making laws more stagnant and difficult to reform. Rational choice institutionalism views society as the overall inclusion of actors such as people and institutions. They strive to achieve maximum utility with stakeholders' interest and desire to be static/fixed from the calculated steps taken. Canada's policy shift reflects that of rational choice institutionalism as it relates to the fight for this, as it was a human rights issue for the country. Canada's first LGBTQ success dates back to 1969 with the reform of sodomy laws (Smith 2005, 225). It wasn't just the support of queer families or activists fighting for the same cause, the women's movement also contributed to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada. Not only was this accepted in the three majority provinces, but the Supreme Court of Canada also approved same-sex marriage. This recognition of the relationship was the final and successful step towards the legal and political campaign led by the Liberal government. It's a decade-long struggle of legal and legislative changes that have taken place that have constitutionalized that it is an offense for anyone to oppose the queer family; leading to legal proceedings. It was not just about same-sex marriage, but also about the right to parent people of the same sex, not just opposite sexes (Smith 2005: 26). Before the 1960s, when the uprising regarding individual protection of queer families and same-sex marriage took place, Canada was also conservative and considered it an unnatural crime, only referring to the religious aspects. But with the help of the Charter that came into force in 1982, Section 15 of the Charter, which states “equal rights,” gave voice and legal authority to such social change. Article (15) of the Canadian Constitutional Charter states that “Every individual is equal before and before the law and is entitled to equal protection and equal benefit of the law, without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination on grounds based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or mental state. physical disability” has made it clear that every individual has the right to seek protection and that no discrimination will be permitted, whether in the workplace or elsewhere. This also contributed to the process of legalizing sodomy and parental rights. It was the Prime Minister of the time, Pierre Trudeau, who declared that “states have no place in the bedroom” (Smith 2005: 334), giving every citizen thepower to live according to one's own interests. Rational choice theory is based on the "principal-agent" model, meaning that the principal enters into a contract with the responsible agent to fulfill certain criteria to the detriment of the agent's interest. Here, the government acts as principal in order to take responsibility for the agent, namely the LGBTQ group seeking the legalization of same-sex marriage, which was their interest. This shows that Canada has used rational choice institutionalism for opportunists to influence the political agenda of social movements such as same-sex marriage. Historical institutionalisms, on the other hand, are much more prone to path dependence, such that once something is done a certain way, change is almost impossible to occur. It is based on rules and regulations of the past and the emergence of change is very difficult. By 2004, 11 American states had banned same-sex marriage (Smith 2005, 225). Indeed, many people believe that legalizing same-sex marriage in certain states would go against their conservative religious beliefs. Canada was similar to this, but the driving force for Canada to change was the fact of the violation of human rights according to its charter. But America knows no such violations. For them, it is based more on moral values, leading to no change in policies. Most political or legal reforms in Canada are based on the Charter, but for the United States, they depend on the First Amendment Act. This makes it even more difficult for the US government to legalize or grant certain rights due to the order not to infringe on the First Amendment. The fact that he is unable to do so shows how path dependence plays a vital role in American politics. ensure that legal forms are considered from a historical institutionalist point of view. The United States legalized any sexual orientation for every individual, but the granting of parental rights and same-sex marriage sparked enormous political mobilization (Smith 2005, 227). Same-sex marriage was a major issue because in many states it was legal and moral to discriminate against the LGBTQ group in employment or housing. Canada, on the other hand, had no such problem to face initially. LGBTQ members were also protected by the Constitution, both in public and in private. To better understand why rational choice is preferable to historical institutionalism, a study of the differences between these two countries will help clarify it. These two transnational countries have many similarities as they both experienced the same political uprising successfully by accepting LGBTQ as individuals and giving them the right to freedom as well as women's right to employment as well as family reforms and gender relations. . The main difference between these two countries would be that LGBTQ members engage in behaviors such as sodomy (Smith 2005, 227). For Canada, making a rational choice was easier because Canada had already decriminalized being a queer family member. criminal law was the responsibility of the federal government. It was difficult for America to do this, being more religiously conservative and less post-materialist, it saw them as committing a crime against nature. Barry Adam once said that “legislation to give gays and lesbians full American citizenship is moving at a glacial pace” (Smith 2005, 225). The same goes for the legalization of same-sex marriage, which is taking place at the same pace of reform. It's even more..