10 same-sex couples to sue Japanese gov't over marriage equality

Good to see. I wish them luck.

Article 24 of the Constitution says, "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes."

The government also argues that the term "husband and wife" used in the civic law and the family registration law indicates a man and a woman

Husband and wife actually appears in the constitution itself, not just the civil code.

*"Article 24.** Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis."*

Or how about the guy I saw carrying a mannequin around on the Yokohama line? He was being very sweet with her.

So that's it : every nonsense* from the progressive left start coming into Japan.

* It's not really nonsense in fact, as these things serve a precise purpose, which is to subvert traditions, customs, moral values, identities in order to turn every individual into consumer without any limit, in order to serve capitalism.

What's marriage ?

It is NOT a love contract.

Article 24 of the Constitution says, "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes."

means that Japan doesn't recognize forced marriage, only that.

If marriage is not a love contract, what's its purpose then ?

Marriage is the legal framework to found a family.

How do you found a family, ie have children : with a man and a woman.

That's common sense biology. There is no whatsoever discrimination against same sex couple, it's human biology.

Then there are artificial insemination, adoptions that are allowed to heterosexual couples that cannot have children because of disease, infertility. If these heterosexual couples didn't have their biological or physiological impairments, they would be able to make children.

Same sex couples cannot make children because of infertility, they cannot because it's biology, that's how human biology is ! Men and women are not biologically identical !

What happens when you open the door to such subversion regarding the marriage as the legal framework to found a family ? Just look at those countries who have already legalized it :

they accept adoptions for same-sex couples they (want to) accept gestational surrogacy, meaning rich people exploit poor Indian women to bear their children, making India as one of the world biggest baby factory for gay couples. And they want to deny the child the identity of his/her biological mother. No more moral, only capitalism. they (want to) accept medically-assisted fertilisation for lesbians. Again, they will deny the child his/her biological father identity.

If everything can be bought, why people shouldn't be able to buy semen, eggs, even women's belly ? On behalf of love, people should be able to rent poor women's belly for 9 months, souds right eh ?

In Brazil they already came up with 3-person civil union : yeah, why restrict marriage to only 2 people ? On behalf of love and against discrimination, marriage should be expand to as many individuals as possible, as long as it's on behalf of love ! And why restrict it to individuals ? People should be able to marry their pets, their vacuum cleaner, their cars, etc..., oh, they should be able to marry their own child too, if it's on behalf of love with mutual consent, right ?

Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with love, nothing to do with supposed equality.

You can't prohibit people to love each other, but marriage is not about this.

Same-sex marriage is 1 step in the process of subversion to destroy what is left of moral values in people.

When people don't have any more morals, values, they become zombies, superficial consumers, and that's great for capitalism. End of story.

"We want our call to be widespread so that the freedom to marry will be recognized for everyone,"

They are already free to marry. They are as free as anyone to marry a member of the opposite sex. That's what marriage is.

And no, this is not the same as interracial marriage.

My parents were in an interracial marriage. She was a Japanese woman and he was a German man.

The emphasis on the words "woman" and "man" is quite deliberate.

I think many of you may have missed the fact that this article doesn't state they're seeking marriage equality, it just says they want money because there is no marriage equality. Shouldn't they be seeking a change in the law instead of just money? Seems a little hypocritical to me.

@ Cricky & Strangerland & maybe many more

Both of you confound love and marriage, which are 2 different things.

Never, neither the Constitution nor the laws in Japan prohibit 2 same-sex individuals to love each other.

Marriage is NOT an acknowledgement of love, nor a love contract.

Marriage is the legal framework to found a family.

Worse, marriage in Japan has technically nothing to do with love in the first place as long as it is not forced, though it may be easier and better for their life if married people at least don't hate each other.

Gays are allowed to love other men and sleep with them. If they want to get married, the law says : do it with a woman.

Lesbians are allowed to love other women and sleep with them. If they want to get married, the law says : do it with a man.

I hope all of you will one day understand the simple yet precise distinction between "love" and "marriage".

Marriage is NOT an acknowledgement of love, nor a love contract.

Marriage is the legal framework to found a family.

No, that’s incorrect. Whatever gave you that silly idea? I’ve been married 20 years, and that’s not what marriage is.

It’s also silly as homosexuals can have families, so your logic doesn’t even make sense even if what you erroneously claimed above were true.

Nit picking to justify hate of something you can't understand that being love. Why? So much hate for this. People using the argument that it will lead to multiple partners or beastiality miss the point, love is love. Should I hate people not like me? That would appear to be the reasoning. Love my wife love my family and everybody should have that no matter what genitallia they have, thankyou Strangerland. It's my new word.

@ Strangerland

I said, marriage is the legal framework to found a family. Legal framework.

That's how marriage is defined within the law, in Japan and many if not most countries that have not legalised same-sex marriage, even in countries before they legalised same-sex marriage.

Your personal view on your marriage, or any other personal individual case on their own marriage and their perception on it doesn't matter at all. The law says one thing and doesn't bend over your personal specific view on the matter.

And of course homosexuals can have families, I mean they have at least their parents, brothers & sisters, don't they ?

But as for the cases of homosexuals founding a family, that possibility is allowed in countries that have legalised same-sex marriage (did I say the opposite?), thus subverting the original purpose of marriage. And Japan is not one of them.

The law says one thing and doesn't bend over your personal specific view on the matter.

The law says a lot of things, but not this:

marriage is the legal framework to found a family

Good luck to them. I don't see why a loving gay partner should be at disadvantage over say inheritance, compared to an unloving heterosexual partner.

If I were to change the family law in Japan, it would be to shift support away from housewives toward children. Japan supports housewives on the assumption they are knocking out kids. The reality is that many aren't or are older women whose kids have grown up and gone. Conversely, many people who are actually supporting and bringing up kids are not housewives. They go out and work, which stops them from qualifying for housewife benefits. It is they who deserve support.

If the government stopped supporting people and dishing out benefits based on marital status, I bet there would be more acceptance for gay marriage.

I know a lesbian couple in japan who have adopted a child. Why shouldn’t they get the same rights as everybody else. Children are not cheap, as most posters know.

Your personal view on your marriage, or any other personal individual case on their own marriage and their perception on it doesn't matter at all.

You say that, yet here you are giving your own personal view on marriage. None of the definitions you have tried to apply to marriage are esconsed in law. They are just your opinions on what you think marriage should be.

But as for the cases of homosexuals founding a family, that possibility is allowed in countries that have legalised same-sex marriage (did I say the opposite?), thus subverting the original purpose of marriage.

There is no unified 'original purpose of marriage'. There are just a bunch of different opinions on what it should be.

If three people (or more) professed love for each other and mutually agreed to enter into in a polygamous Mormon style wedding with perhaps one old guy and several young women, would you grant them that right or deny them?

A mediocre attempt at misdirection. No one is asking for polygamy to be legal. Nor beatsiality nor the ability to marry a child. Any other red herrings you want to throw out there without discussing the actual subject matter?

With all due respect to gay couples.....

The Japanese government should continue to give priority support and marriage recognition to heterosexual couples because they can bear children and having both male and female parents is the ideal situation for children to thrive and for society to perpetuate.

The Japanese government should give children's money to all parents regardless of marital status including LGBTQ parents.

All people regardless of marital status should be able to nominate next of kin/partners for inheritances, hospital visitation rights etc.

Such an arrangement would recognize and support heterosexual marriage as the gold standard for child bearing and raising while equally financially supporting all other parents.

Finally, if gay couples don't get everything they want it doesn't in any way mean they are hated or discriminated against. The law often allows some people to do or get things while excluding those who don't qualify. It has absolutely nothing to do with hate.

Finally, if gay couples don't get everything they want it doesn't in any way mean they are hated or discriminated against.

Um, discrimination is exactly what it is.

What a silly statement.

There are many people who cannot marry according to law regardless of whether they love thier partner/s.

A) People cannot marry if one of the partners is underage.

B) An existing couple cannot expand thier marriage with a third or fourth or more person/s.

C) A person cannot marry someone who is already married to someone else.

D) Polygamy is not allowed.

E) Incestuous marriages are not allowed.

There are people who fit in the above categories that want to marry because they love each other. Is the law discriminatory towards them for forbidding them? No. Are we hateful to them because we don't think they should be allowed to legally marry? No.

The legal line must be drawn somewhere.

Rights should only be denied if there is an ethical reason to deny the right. The existence alone of reasons for which the right is denied cannot be used to justify the denial of the right to another group. There must be an ethical reason by which to do so. Any example of marriage is this, can be shown an example where marriage isn't that. There is no universal definition of marriage, marriage is basically what people make of it. Thereby the only grounds by which it can be denied, are ethical ones. And having the same genitalia is not an ethical reason to justify the denial of marriage to homosexuals. This is entirely irrelevant as to whether it's ok to have sex with children, animals, football teams, siblings, or vegetables. Each exclusion requires being evaluated on its own merits, in order to form a nuanced opinion on the matter.

How about the guy who married a hologram.

Can he join the lawsuit as well?

If the hologram was capable of giving verbal and written consent, perhaps. Otherwise your point is moot.

Imagine you are a japanese / gaikokujin gay couple. You can't get spouse visa... in addition to not getting tax exemption, health insurance and other benefits 'different sex' couples get. And nowhere is it linked to the ability to the man and/or woman fertility or will to have children. Maybe suing for discrimination is not the best move, but would be nice to recognise that's not fair...