Historically it has been noticed that social movements in most cases have caused political uprisings and thus changed the laws and policies of states for the betterment of each citizen. Similar to any other legislative reform, the one regarding the arrival of "same-sex marriage" was approved. But due to political institutions there are various ways of looking at this law reform. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't 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 demonstrate that human rights are given much more consideration as it provides maximum benefit to all, and on the other hand it will demonstrate that the historical approach is determined on moral values ​​which do not cause any change in society by 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 work to achieve maximum utility with the interest of the actors and the desire to be static/fixed with respect to the calculated measures taken. The change in Canada's politics is reflected with that of rational choice institutionalism in regards to fighting for it as it is a human rights issue for the country. The first success Canada achieved towards the LGBTQ community was in 1969 with the reform of sodomy laws (Smith 2005, 225). It wasn't just the support of queer families or activists who fought for the same cause, the women's movement also impacted same-sex marriage to be legalized in Canada. Not only was it accepted in the three majority provinces, but the Supreme Court of Canada had also approved same-sex marriage. This recognition of the relationship was the final and successful step towards the legal and political campaign waged by the Liberal government. It was a decade-long struggle of legal and legislative changes that constitutionalized that anyone who went against the queer family would be offensive; leading to legal action. It was not just about same-sex marriage, but also about the right to parenthood by the same sex, not just the opposite sex (Smith 2005, 26). Before the 1960s, when the individual protection riots against queer family and same-sex marriage broke out, Canada was also conservative and considered this as a crime against nature, following only the religious aspects. But with the help of the Charter which came into force in 1982, section 15 of the Charter which states “equal rights”, gave voice and legal authority to such social change. Section (15) of the Charter of the Canadian Constitution states that “Every individual is equal before and under the law and is entitled to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, on national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or mental condition. physical disability” made it clear that every individual has the right to seek protection and that no discrimination will be permitted either in the workplace or elsewhere. This then also helped the process of legalizing sodomy and parental rights. It was the prime minister of the time, Pierre Trudeau, who stated that "states have no place in the bedroom" (Smith2005, 334), giving every citizen the authority to live according to his own interest. Rational choice theory concerns the "principal-agent" model, which means that the principal enters into a contract with the agent responsible for satisfying certain criteria at the expense of the agent's interest. Here, the government acts as a principal to take the responsibility of the agent, being the lgbtq group calling for the legalization of same-sex marriage, which was in their interest. This therefore shows that Canada has used rational choice institutionalism for opportunists to influence the political agenda of social movement such as same-sex marriage. Historical institutionalism on the other hand is much more prone to path dependence, meaning that once something is done a certain way, change is almost impossible to happen. It is based on rules and regulations of the past and the emergence of change is very difficult. By 2004, 11 states had banned same-sex marriage in America (Smith 2005, 225). That's because many believe that for the United States to legalize same-sex marriage in some states would go against their conservative religious beliefs. Canada was similar to this, but the driving force behind Canadian change was the violation of human rights under their Charter. But in America no such violations occur. For them it is mainly based on moral values, without causing any change in policies. Most of Canada's political and legislative reforms 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 American government to legalize or guarantee certain rights due to the order not to infringe the first amendment. The fact that they are unable to do so shows how path dependence plays a vital role in American politics, making legal forms viewed from a historical-institutionalist perspective. The United States legalized every individual of any sexual orientation, but ensuring parental rights and same-sex marriage involved enormous political mobilization (Smith 2005, 227). Same-sex marriage was an important issue because in many state jurisdictions it was legal and moral to discriminate against the LGBTQ group in terms of employment or housing. Canada, on the other hand, didn't have such a problem to deal with in the first place. LGBTQ members were constitutionally protected both publicly and privately. To better understand why rational choice is better than historical institutionalism, a study of the differences between these two countries will help clarify this. These two transnational countries have many similarities as they both underwent the same political uprising with the success of accepting LGBTQ as individuals and giving them the right to freedom and women's right regarding employment as well as family and gender relations reforms . . The main difference in these two countries would be that LGBTQ members engaged in behaviors such as sodomy (Smith 2005, 227). For Canada, choosing the rational choice was easier since Canada had already decriminalized being a queer family member as criminal law came under the federal government. It was difficult for America to do that, being religiously, more conservative and less post materialistic, they looked at them as if they had committed a crime against nature. Barry Adam once stated that "legislation to bring gays and lesbians into full American citizenship is at a glacial pace" (Smith 2005, 225), the same is true regarding the legalization of.