Same-sex marriage (SSM) is the controversial issues in this modern world. The traditional belief of marriage has been the recognized as a social union between men and women. The union of marriage represents the function to the procreation of humankind, personal and social identity, sexual intercourse, and socialization. The article explains that how elite policy preferences, the general public, and the gay people themselves have actively involved with for and against in the legalization of SSM.
Historically, same-sex marriage is forbidden in many countries, including Canada. The early response of Canadian to the same-sex marriage was unfavourable and viewed in a negative way. Graham, Swift and Delaney (2000) explain that in 1967, same-sex marriages …show more content…
Pettinicchio (2010) defines the institutional explanation as the structure of political institutions that shapes the policy outcome and focuses on the political opportunity for the legalization of gay marriage. Pettinicchio (2010) describes that the institutional factors supported the SSM in Canada because the definition of marriage come at the federal level. Pettinicchio (2010) explains that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom represents the norm of equality language which created new ways for the courts to confront the authority. Pettinicchio (2010) shows that the Canada has a highly centralized federal authority and favourable provincial government positions that favour the SSM.
Moreover, the public opinion, interest organization and issue salience create the situations for the legalization of gay marriage. The political elites will more likely to act with the response to public opinion when public concerns about the matter in society. Pettinicchio (2010) shows that in 1990, the court responded to public opinion and shifted the view to a favourable position on gay marriage. Pettinicchio (2010) represents that the Canadians are likely to agree with court decisions because they believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of equality …show more content…
Additionally, the SSM was not a salient issue in the media, and more than half of the interest groups were not in the support of passing enactment of SSM. Pettinicchio (2010) shows that a large number of witnesses, politicians, and organized interest groups confronting in front of the board and showed the concern about the regulation of gay marriage. The convergence of politicians, public opinion, issue salience, and interest groups created a situation for the legalization of gay marriage.
Pettinicchio (2012) defines that the morality policies are related to feeling, political divisions and social dispute on gay marriage. Morality systems are based on the ideas and standards of culture which decide what is wrong or right. Policies about sex are not morality until people outline that matter in human values rather than on economic interests. The public opinion highly drives the morality issue of
Historically, same-sex marriage is forbidden in many countries, including Canada. The early response of Canadian to the same-sex marriage was unfavourable and viewed in a negative way. Graham, Swift and Delaney (2000) explain that in 1967, same-sex marriages …show more content…
Pettinicchio (2010) defines the institutional explanation as the structure of political institutions that shapes the policy outcome and focuses on the political opportunity for the legalization of gay marriage. Pettinicchio (2010) describes that the institutional factors supported the SSM in Canada because the definition of marriage come at the federal level. Pettinicchio (2010) explains that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom represents the norm of equality language which created new ways for the courts to confront the authority. Pettinicchio (2010) shows that the Canada has a highly centralized federal authority and favourable provincial government positions that favour the SSM.
Moreover, the public opinion, interest organization and issue salience create the situations for the legalization of gay marriage. The political elites will more likely to act with the response to public opinion when public concerns about the matter in society. Pettinicchio (2010) shows that in 1990, the court responded to public opinion and shifted the view to a favourable position on gay marriage. Pettinicchio (2010) represents that the Canadians are likely to agree with court decisions because they believe in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of equality …show more content…
Additionally, the SSM was not a salient issue in the media, and more than half of the interest groups were not in the support of passing enactment of SSM. Pettinicchio (2010) shows that a large number of witnesses, politicians, and organized interest groups confronting in front of the board and showed the concern about the regulation of gay marriage. The convergence of politicians, public opinion, issue salience, and interest groups created a situation for the legalization of gay marriage.
Pettinicchio (2012) defines that the morality policies are related to feeling, political divisions and social dispute on gay marriage. Morality systems are based on the ideas and standards of culture which decide what is wrong or right. Policies about sex are not morality until people outline that matter in human values rather than on economic interests. The public opinion highly drives the morality issue of