national

Osaka court rules same-sex marriage ban not unconstitutional

89 Comments
By Elaine Lies

An Osaka court on Monday ruled that Japan's ban on same-sex marriage was not "unconstitutional", dealing a setback to LGBTQ rights activists in the only Group of Seven nation that doesn't allow people of the same gender to marry.

Three same-sex couples - two male, one female - had filed the case in the Osaka district court, only the second to be heard on the issue in Japan. In addition to rejecting their claim that being unable to marry was unconstitutional, the court also threw out their demands for 1 million yen in damages for each couple.

"This is awful, just awful," an unidentified female plaintiff said outside the courthouse in footage shown on public broadcaster NHK after the ruling, her voice cracking. It wasn't immediately clear whether the plaintiffs planned to appeal.

The ruling dashes activists' hopes of raising pressure on Japan's government to address the issue after a Sapporo court in March 2021 decided in favor of a claim that not allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The ruling triggered a surge of comment in social media in the country, where public support for same-sex marriage has been increasing in opinion polls.

"Unbelievable," tweeted one lawyer working on third case on the issue being heard in Tokyo, with a verdict due later this year.

Japan's constitution defines marriage as being based on "the mutual consent of both sexes". But the introduction of partnership rights for same-sex couples in the capital of Tokyo last week, along with rising support in polls, had increased activists' and lawyers' hopes for the Osaka case.

Japanese law is considered relatively liberal in some areas by Asian standards, but across the continent only Taiwan has legalized same-sex marriage so far.

Under the current rules in Japan, same-sex couples are not allowed to legally marry, can't inherit their partner's assets - such as the house they may have shared - and also have no parental rights over their partner's children.

Though partnership certificates issued by some individual municipalities help same-sex couples to rent a place together and have hospital visitation rights, they don't give them the full legal rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

Last week the Tokyo prefectural government passed a bill to recognize same-sex partnership agreements - meaning more than half Japan's population is now covered by such agreements.

While Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has said the issue needs to be "carefully considered", his ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has not disclosed any plans to review the matter or propose legislation, though some senior LDP figures do favor reform.

The upcoming case in Tokyo means public debate on the issue will continue, particularly in the capital where an opinion poll by the Tokyo government late last year found roughly 70% were in favor of same-sex marriage.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would have far-reaching implications both socially and economically, activists say, by making it easier for companies to attract and retain talented workers, and even help lure foreign firms to the world's third-biggest economy.

"If Japan wants to once again take a leading position in Asia, it has a really good opportunity right now," said Masa Yanagisawa, head of Prime Services at Goldman Sachs and a board member of activist group "Marriage for all Japan," speaking prior to the Osaka verdict.

"International firms are reviewing their Asian strategy and LGBTQ inclusivity is becoming a topic ... International businesses don't want to invest in a location that isn't LGBTQ-friendly."

© Thomson Reuters 2022.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

89 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Homophobes of the world UNITE!

Because nothing will threaten a solid straight marriage like a same sex couple wanting the same rights as you!

13 ( +38 / -25 )

Not my business …. If any 2 people want to get married … With the same rights as heterosexual couples…. Congrats …. Osaka court ??? FFS …. My condolences.

13 ( +19 / -6 )

painkillerToday 05:11 pm JST

By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, same-sex marriage is wrong even before it gets to the point of legal review.

You act like this is a statement of fact and not a personal opinion.

Everyone should be allowed to marry the person they love. Everyone.

Anything less is bigotry.

11 ( +36 / -25 )

Not suprising. Reminds me of hpw it went in the Usa. Some states denied SSM while ithers supported it until the Supreme Court was forced to act. Keep up the pressure and homophobes have no right to push there archaic beliefs on everyone.

9 ( +16 / -7 )

Everyone should be allowed to marry the person they love. Everyone.

girl-in-tokyo, that is exactly my point: the strict meaning of the term "marriage" has nothing to do with the practice. "An agreement between two consulting adults to love, support, and be faithful to one another" would be a definition more attuned to our modern reality.

8 ( +15 / -7 )

It is a fact; definitions are factual.

Your ‘definition’ varies wildly across countries, religions, states, cities.

There is no ‘definition’.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

"International firms are reviewing their Asian strategy and LGBTQ inclusivity is becoming a topic ... International businesses don't want to invest in a location that isn't LGBTQ-friendly."

We at Goldman Sachs like LGBT friendly economies that will bail us out with public taxpayer funds if our shorts and derivatives and mortgage consolidations have a crash.

But if you are an oil state overflowing in capital that murder LGBTQ you are good too.

7 ( +22 / -15 )

By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman.

By precedent in cultures and history across the world ‘marriage’ is between a man and a child.

In most places that changed, because thinking and acceptance generally change things for the better.

Give it a whirl.

7 ( +17 / -10 )

To be honest who cares?

Actually quite a few people care very much. From the same-sex partners who want equal rights under the law and to have their union recognized, to their families that love them and want them treated equally to heterosexuals (such as myself) who are not threatened by gay people being in love and committed to each other, and who recognize bigotry when we see it.

That is who cares.

6 ( +15 / -9 )

In the US, one of the arguments that ended the ban on gay marriage was the 14th Amendment forbidding unequal treatment under the law. Well, Marriage is a legal contract and denying it denies certain legal benefits.

For example......

WAY back in the day, the Mrs. and I got married at the Douglas County Courthouse in Lawrence, KS for $65 (40 to the state for the license, 25 to the judge - Cash Only).

One of the reasons we got married was so that when she became a permanent resident (which she no longer is) she would be eligible for in-state tuition instead of the outlandish USD 5k per semester for out of state (Like I said, it was a long time ago...)

Now that isn't the only reason we go married and it certainly isn't the reason we are still married (personally, I think if she ever sobers up and realizes what she has done, I am a gonner) BUT it certainly was one component at the time. A component that would have been denied to us if we were both the same sex.

This is discrimination of treatment under the law and is a major reason why (for now anyway) gay marriage is legal in the United States.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

@girl_in_tokyo I totally agree EVERYONE should be able to marry the person they love AS LONG as it is the opposite sex!!

Why? what are people afraid of?

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Interesting concept, objecting to conflating access to marriage with legalese when by definition, and at its root, marriage is a legal construct.

Which is why we have a court here handling the issue.

And I stand by my assertion that it’s just a fig leaf for the real reason: homophobic bigotry. That a court provides the fig leaf does nothing to change it.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

I think gay people should have the right to get married. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be just as miserable as straight people.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

It is completely unnatural, unless you think nature is wrong. 

xxxNewsflashxxx

Marriage is not something created by nature.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Sorry, Painkiller: Latin: "provided with a *mari," a young woman, Sorry for all you women no longer in the spring of youth: etymologically, you may no longer "marry."

4 ( +11 / -7 )

University professors that said they were not going to navigate the new he, she , her him, they, them, etc.. were fired and faced criminal charges but for now that has been dropped.

So, no problem then.

So in Canada if you are ever there be very careful if someone says the are "they" instead of her or he.

Why? What’ll happen?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

I thought Japan (based on the slogan of the recent Tokyo Olympics) was to be more “inclusive.” Guess these judges didn’t get the memo.

3 ( +33 / -30 )

painkillerToday 05:39 pm JST

It is a fact; definitions are factual.

Different issue. At the same time, the word "marry" is for a man and women. So, again, by definition everyone cannot marry everyone.

Definitions change with usage. There's an entire field of study in linguistics that shows exactly how this happens. What you are trying to say is that you resent that the definition of marriage is changing to include same-sex partners. While you can stomp your feet and wave your fists and try to be a holdout, you can't stop language from changing.

Sounds like a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.

Bigotry: "An obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."

What's really funny to me is that you used "a definition is a fact" as an argument for your side, but now you're saying that the definition of bigotry is not a fact when it supports a different point of view. LOL ...

3 ( +10 / -7 )

International firms are reviewing their Asian strategy and LGBTQ inclusivity is becoming a topic ... International businesses don't want to invest in a location that isn't LGBTQ-friendly."

Ahaha this is hilarious! Who will believe this????

3 ( +10 / -7 )

I just don't get it

Maybe next time you should actually read the article.

If you want to pledge or hold ceremony, but want to use different surnames, do it all by yourselves.

Taxation issues? Administrative procedural issues?

It's this an much more!

Under the current rules in Japan, same-sex couples are not allowed to legally marry, can't inherit their partner's assets - such as the house they may have shared - and also have no parental rights over their partner's children.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

reason to marry is to have children.

It’s not like somehow the legal framework instantly changes somebody’s biology when people choose to be married. It’s not like people need to be married to have children. That’s daft.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I really don't like the "everyone" should be able to marry who they love thinking.

30yo man and 15yo girl are in love - let'em marry!

Woman loves 2 men - 2 for 1 discount marriage package!

While I support the ban, NO ONE (supporters or not) has offered ANY kind of compromise.

For example, A legal certificate with could deal with legal and medical issues between them.

I just think that there are too many things in "traditional" marriage that same-sex couples are just not fit for.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Japan stands out as weird for being anti LGBTQ rights. It’s got one of the longest histories of documented partnerships/involvement among same sex pairings in the world, yet all the LDP oyajis will say “Japan can’t do gay marriage cause it’s not our history “ but it literally is!

their beloved samurai were well known to visit the same sex brothels that existed across the country. These went removed until industrialization in their attempt to copy European styles, even their embarrassment about sex work. Almost all of the Daimyo had a young boy/partner at their side that they trusted and regularly slept with along with their harem of wives.

japan is literally a gay history example in a nutshell of a society not ending or burning down as a result.

just let them marry and be miserable like the rest of us lol. It literally affects no one but them and it’s not our or anyone else’s business

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Marriage is only for males and females. Do not normalize what is not normal. Kudos to the Osaka court for doing the right thing.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Watching all the pride parades over these past few years, one thing that I’ve become aware of. The gay community seems to be heavily associated with communist/Marxist groups. When I hear them speak they often talk about ending Capitalism, etc, etc.

I’m so very happy that this decision was made. Pandora’s box was opened in the west as soon as Obama pushed for same sex marriage. We went from same sec marriage to trans women destroying women's sports and men can have babies and periods.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the biggest push has been to not only sexualize children with drag queens, but now it’s giving children puberty blockers and destroying their bodies for good! I thought for the leftists who pushed Covid vaccines it was all about the science, for them science is what ever they say it is now. Changing little 5 year old boys to girls or Vice-versa is their drug of choice and it’s time for people to go to jail for a very, very longtime.

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with how people feel now. Morality isn’t about religion, I thought we all agreed at one time that children should be left alone when it comes to sexuality, but for the leftist, children have become their weapon of choice against the rest of us who think it’s just sick what their doing.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Surprise Surprise

1 ( +28 / -27 )

I don't think any disadvantage will occur after saying yes to the issue. So I don't understand why Japan government hasn't still approved same-sex marriage.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Osaka court rules same-sex marriage ban not unconstitutional

By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, same-sex marriage is wrong even before it gets to the point of legal review.

Facts, with which I agree.

This is good. 15-20 years ago in the west, the gay community said "what's the big deal, we just want to enjoy the same rights as everyone else".

Now in some places you can face jail time for mis-gendering someone.

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Every time.

Stay the course, Japan.

Same here. Stay the course, Japan.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

While I can't say I don't support a gay-marriage ban in Japan, I feel that recognition of shared custody of children after divorce issue should be resolved or "un-banned" long before gay-marriage is recognized. I feel both issues are important, but the government has a lot of work to do in terms of equal rights in this country.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Maybe just keep things as they are and avoid the slippery slope of the western world.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Japan is looking back to the 1930s.

Every single court case rules in favour of the government no matter what it is.

0 ( +21 / -21 )

"International firms are reviewing their Asian strategy and LGBTQ inclusivity is becoming a topic ... International businesses don't want to invest in a location that isn't LGBTQ-friendly."

If they are it is just for show.

Let me remind people of facts (available on any LGBTQ site).

195 countries in the world.

71 countries being LGBTQ is illegal!

43 more countries public display or support of LGBTQ is prohibited!

That it 114 countries out of 195 where LGBTQ rights are basically zero.

Are people saying that these international corporation are going to avoid or stop business with these 114 countries?

Let me point out Apple's CEO is gay, has Apple stopped business in Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc...?

No on the contrary they are expanding ( or at least trying to expand) opening their Apple store in Saudi Arabia in 2018 the have one in UAE, and plenty of other countries were being gay is a crime.

So this fantasy that corporations care is just that a fantasy.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

The court simply followed what is written in the constitution. They could not have ruled otherwise without being seen as activist or unable to read.

However I can't see why LGBTQ couples, or anyone else, shouldn't be able to nominate guardians for their children, who inherits thier assets, who can co-sign a rental contract, etc.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

An Osaka court ruling on a Japanese government law.. 

Seriously trying to make an argument from this? Solid comic gold! (triple boom).

Cities ruling on National law? Well, that sounds like what I was talking about hours ago, you know cities, states etc deciding their own law rather than your ‘definition’.

How can there be a ‘definition’ when one city defy the National ‘definition’? Seems like there is more than one definition.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I'm not heterosexual and I've married someone of the opposite sex.

That sounds absolutely miserable for you and your partner. Time and time again the whole anti same sex marriage argument boils down to no wanting others to be free and happy.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Fighto!Today 05:18 pm JST

Sanity prevails.

The courts cannot change the laws regarding Same sex marriage. Only the government can, and there is ceetainly no mass public support for lawmakers to change this any time soon.

I think what you mean is, "bigotry prevails."

And you're wrong - there is mass public support for marriage rights. There really are only a few holdouts who even care anymore. And those people tend to be older people and people who haven't met or interacted with many same-sex couples, who really don't fully understand the issues clearly; and, then, of course, there are the screaming bigots who hate anyone different from themselves. So we have ignorance, which is understandable; and hate, which is not.

-1 ( +19 / -20 )

Your ‘definition’ varies wildly across countries, religions, states, cities. 

There is no ‘definition’.

As this article is in a Japanese publication, the court case described takes place in Japan, and the ruling is upholding Japan's ban on same-sex marriage, sounds like the definition is a fact the Japanese court took into consideration in making its decision.

Read the article. This is not ‘Japan’s ban on same sex marriage’.

It’s Osaka. One city in Japan.

As I said before, remember that part where I mentioned cities, there is no ‘definition’.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

@ girl_in_tokyo -

And you're wrong - there is mass public support for marriage rights. There really are only a few holdouts who even care anymore

Really? I would like to see a few recent nationwide polls to show that.

Same sex marriage will ultimately be enacted nationwide in Japan. Japan is not immune to the winds of change. But to put the issue to a referendum now is not likely going to succeed. After 10 years, much more likely.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Marriage is between a man and a woman; civil partnerships for others.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

Geee. What a shocker. I can not believe it.

So list me get this straight. NO CHANGE in the system at all?

Sounds 100% like Japan.

Oh look, soup is on sale.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Anyone of course can lobby for more "rights" but as things stand now under the law, everyone can only marry the opposite sex.

But again it is anyone's right to try to convince the courts to be treated differently under the law

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wow, happy Pride month, everyone. /s

Shameful, Japan. Just shameful.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

when common sense prevails.

marriage is relationship man and woman.

reason to marry is to have children.

its natural.

same sex people relationship cant be called marriage.they cant have kids naturally.there is room to call their relationship like close friendship or so but definitely not marriage.

greetings to "activits" on photo,you have better to get some real job instead of getting some grants from your "activism".

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

@iradickle

No need for a ‘compromise’.

Many other developed countries have done it.

Anyway, it’s going to happen in Japan before long.

In ten years time, most people will look at this and wonder why it was ever an issue. You will possibly get a few crusty old political dinosaurs trying to fire up decrepit remnants and get a headline with bigoted comments, but that’s about it. Some might spam social media to make it look as if their numbers are bigger than they really are, but their stupidity is far too transparent for anyone with even half a brain.

They’ll become increasingly irrelevant anyway.

5-10 years. I’d be very surprised if it takes any longer.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

So in Canada if you are ever there be very careful if someone says the are "they" instead of her or he.

Why? What’ll happen?

Oh, not much, Bob. Not much.....

https://nationalpost.com/news/b-c-father-arrested-held-in-jail-for-repeatedly-violating-court-orders-over-childs-gender-transition-therapy

Stay the course, Japan. Stay the course.

Avoid this at all costs.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan is not a common-law country, with judiciary powers being limited with regard to precedents. Don't expect too much. Things would never change even though the case is further brought to courts of appeals or the Supreme Court.

While the verdict could help raise social awareness, all the constitutional issues shall be resolved at the legislative branch or the Diet, plus public approval via the referendum. That's my understanding of the rule of law.

The election campaigns for the Upper House will soon get started just this week. So what should we do now? :)

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Bob FosseToday  07:02 pm JST

Read the article. This is not ‘Japan’s ban on same sex marriage’. 

Read the first sentence in the article (boom):

An Osaka court on Monday ruled that **Japan's ban on same-sex marriage was not "unconstitutional",**

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Just interpret "both sexes" (両性) to mean both sexes of the partners, which could be "male and female", "male and male", or "female and female". This means "both sexes" of the partners.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

We already have marriage equality. People of any sexuality, religion, or race are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. These people are asking for special treatment that breaks the foundations of society.

I'm not heterosexual and I've married someone of the opposite sex. Marriage laws aren't discriminating against me at all, I have the same marriage rights as everyone else.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Finally so great news coming out of this beautiful country! They see how far the LGBTQ+++ is going with their push on children. Thank you Osaka Government.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

painkiller,

And in the country of Japan there is a: ban on same-sex marriage 

Not sure about that; it's simply that marriage is - it goes without saying between a man a woman. Anything else is so absurd that, quite rightly, it's not recognised.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The SAP sure did go it the wrong way. The SAP have to get the majority of Parliament to Change the constitution so SAP marriage can be recognised. The lawyers sure did see used these people as a cash cow. They would of known from the beginning that the this type lawsuit challenging the constitution would fail.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Read the first sentence in the article (boom):

An Osaka court on Monday ruled that ***Japan's ban on same-sex marriage* was not "unconstitutional",**

An Osaka court (boom boom).

Seriously, try harder.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The view of "Democracy" looks very different to all-too-human Japanese judges sitting on their perches high up on the bench listening in one ear to HMV in Kasumigaseki and ever mindful of promotion and pensions. This biased judgment ruling against same-sex marriage is therefore only a temporary setback because "the times they are a-changin'" and in the end the LGBTQ community and people of goodwill united can never be defeated.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Sorry, govt says no. Sloooooow progress.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

It’s just a matter of time before same-sex marriage becomes legal in Japan. Even the LDP will see opposition or inaction as a vote loser quite soon.

I’d go with 5-10 years if there was a spread bet available.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Mark,their legal thing a spouse can do , pertaining to health and wealth,such as making medical decisions for the person,they have a legal connection too

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The gay community seems to be heavily associated with communist/Marxist groups. When I hear them speak they often talk about ending Capitalism, etc, etc.

Maybe because there seem to be some correlations between "the gay community" and intelligence?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/abs/intelligence-and-homosexuality/E07585DD50D9924C677EFC7B6060AB0A

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

NemoJune 20  05:23 pm JST

Homophobes of the world UNITE!

Because nothing will threaten a solid straight marriage like a same sex couple wanting the same rights as you!

This is such malarky, a specious statement.  It is like saying that a heinous murder or rape in India is fine because it does not threaten people in the United States.  No, murder or rape is just plain wrong, as is same sex marriages.  If nature intended that same sex couples be natural, then through evolution, two men having sex would produce a baby.  Newsflash, it does not! (Although pro-abortion Democrat Aimee Arrambide thinks men can get pregnant, just amazing!). It is completely unnatural, unless you think nature is wrong.  By the way, you can change the word “Homophobe” to something more accurate, which would be a new word, “Pervertphobe”.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

No wonder world-wide aged society with a low birth rate  except nations not polluted by modern-democratic countries

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The ruling dashes activists' hopes of raising pressure on Japan's government to address the issue after a Sapporo court in March 2021 decided in favor of a claim that not allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

The Sapporo case is a bit tricky as the judge didn't directly touch upon Article 24 on marriage. Instead the court recognised the constitutionality of s-sex marriage by referring to Article 14 ("All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.")

That's highly debatable as judiciary textualists argue that the Sapporo case is a wide and irrelevant interpretation if not distortion.

I find part of the 75-year old Constitution outdated. But any reform work is in legislative domains, and should be done by Diet lawmakers ahead of the referendum.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

To be honest who cares?

the LGBTalpahbet stuff has just gone way too far! But To be honest I think if two consenting adults want to show commitment to each other, legally and spiritually, regardless of their sex they should be able to!

-5 ( +19 / -24 )

Lord DartmouthToday  04:16 pm JST

painkiller, 

*And in the country of Japan there is a: *ban on same-sex marriage 

Not sure about that; it's simply that marriage is - it goes without saying between a man a woman. Anything else is so absurd that, quite rightly, it's not recognised.

Absolutely agree.

Well-put.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

such backwards thinking!! very dissappointed with Osaka court's decision!

-6 ( +15 / -21 )

Fine, take it out of the hand's of the courts and let the Diet get off their arses, do some work, and create a new law, making it legal!

But I guess odds of that actually happening are slim and none.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

""dealing a setback to LGBTQ rights activists in the only Group of Seven nation that doesn't allow people of the same gender to marry.""

Many countries do not allow same sex marriage, so I am not sure if this was a mistake or something else!?

I do not understand why do they need the approval of a government to be in love, couples should share their lives without seeking approval, recognition is NOT a condition for LOVE.

It is understandable that being legally married makes matters easier, but couple already knew the risks at the time they started their relationship.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

YubaruToday  07:01 pm JST

I just don't get it

Maybe next time you should actually read the article before making yourself look foolish!

If you want to pledge or hold ceremony, but want to use different surnames, do it all by yourselves.

Taxation issues? Administrative procedural issues?

It's this an much more!

Under the current rules in Japan, same-sex couples are not allowed to legally marry, can't inherit their partner's assets - such as the house they may have shared - and also have no parental rights over their partner's children.

Heck , Inheritance=Tax issues. Receive as gift and pay up gift Tax

Parental rights = Just go through adoption procedure.

So what are more?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

This is wonderful news. A Japanese court recognized the objective reality of what marriage is and is not. Marriage Deconstructionists in the article were disappointed but, hopefully, they will reconsider and be pro-societal.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

The Osaka verdict is textualist as the Constitution doesn't presuppose that the same-sex marriage or LGBTQ union.

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.

https://japan.kantei.go.jp/constitution_and_government_of_japan/constitution_e.html

To solve the problem, amendment is inevitable. Unfortunately Japan's opposition and progressive politicians are more reluctant to call for any constitutional reforms (due to the issue on Article 9) . But they may be charged with hypocrisy and professional negligence.

-7 ( +9 / -16 )

What is this fuss again?

What is marriage?

If you want to pledge or hold ceremony, but want to use different surnames, do it all by yourselves.

Taxation issues? Administrative procedural issues?

I just don't get it

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Bob FosseToday  07:26 pm JST

An Osaka court (boom boom).

Seriously, try harder.

An Osaka court ruling on a Japanese government law..

Seriously trying to make an argument from this? Solid comic gold! (triple boom).

girl_in_tokyoToday  07:45 pm JST

Definitions change with usage.

Not the definition of marriage in Japan.

What you are trying to say is that you resent that the definition of marriage is changing to include same-sex partners. 

That is what you are trying to say.

I am not trying to say anything other than repeating the fact that in Japan the definition of marriage does not include same-sex matrimony.

If this makes you stomp your feet and wave your fists, well, facts don't care about your feelings.

*Bigotry: "An obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."*

What's really funny to me is that you used "a definition is a fact" as an argument for your side, but now you're saying that the definition of bigotry is not a fact when it supports a different point of view. LOL ...

You provided a definition of bigotry, and then you misunderstand the meaning of it when trying to make some kind of argument. And then you add LOL.

If you could only see my smile now.

Anyway, the rainbow flag is not proudly unfurling at any weddings in Japan.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

Bob FosseToday  08:28 pm JST

Cities ruling on National law? Well, that sounds like what I was talking about hours ago, you know cities, states etc deciding their own law rather than your ‘definition’. 

Nope.

First, it is the Osaka District Court-----in Japan district courts are located in each prefecture (except for Hokkaido which has 4 district courts)..

Second, the Osaka District court is located in the city of Sakai.

So it is not a city deciding its own law.

How can there be a ‘definition’ when one city defy the National ‘definition’? Seems like there is more than one definition.

No city is defying any law.

And the district courts "interpret" the law.

And in the country of Japan there is a:

ban on same-sex marriage 

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

Bob Fosse

Today 08:12 pm JST

University professors that said they were not going to navigate the new he, she , her him, they, them, etc.. were fired and faced criminal charges but for now that has been dropped.

> So, no problem then.

> So in Canada if you are ever there be very careful if someone says the are "they" instead of her or he.

> Why? What’ll happen?

No problem unless you think being fired arrested is no problem.

And what will happen?

You will be arrested fined or jailed if the person insists on pressing charges.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Twats. Japan seems hellbent on regressing back to the Stone Age.

-8 ( +10 / -18 )

@girl_in_tokyo I totally agree EVERYONE should be able to marry the person they love AS LONG as it is the opposite sex!! Stop trying to call this bigotry. Stop trying to twist science. When you say everyone should be allowed to marry person they love. Ok, I LOVE MY DOG, can I marry my dog and I dare you say my dog is not a person because if you do then I will call it bigotry!!!

painkillerBy definition, marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, same-sex marriage is wrong even before it gets to the point of legal review.

You act like this is a statement of fact and not a personal opinion. Everyone should be allowed to marry the person they love. Everyone. Anything less is bigotry.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

Everyone should be allowed to marry the person they love.

Now here is where the argument of unconstitutional gets tricky.

Being the devil's advocate.

If we use the "not treated equally" argument.

Then all bans on marriage between certain people would be unconstitutional.

So mother marrying son, father daughter, brother sister, under age, first cousins, etc ...

So we can clearly see the court and laws are not black and white, just because one group can does not always mean the other must get the same.

Those that believe the constitution and laws work like that need to take a good hard look at facts.

End of Devils advocate!

-9 ( +8 / -17 )

By banning same-sex marriage, Japan remains the last bastion of sanity among the G7 nations. A marriage between a man and a woman is the very foundation of healthy society.

-9 ( +17 / -26 )

Lots of the these gay relationships,are better than lots of Japanese others love less relationships ,lots Japanese official are in

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Meiyouwenti (没有問題): Thank you! You will be scorned by those who think that it is we who are the “ bigots,” when, in fact, we’re defending common sense. I am proud of Japan!

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

we made the rules, and we find that your desires don't fit our rules, so that makes it okay to deny you.... (⌒▽⌒)

-12 ( +13 / -25 )

Goldman Sachs knows what's best for the world...

-12 ( +7 / -19 )

An Osaka court on Monday ruled that Japan's ban on same-sex marriage was not "unconstitutional"

Glad to see there's a G7 country with common sense regarding this topic.

-12 ( +11 / -23 )

This is good. 15-20 years ago in the west, the gay community said "what's the big deal, we just want to enjoy the same rights as everyone else".

Now in some places you can face jail time for misgendering someone.

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Every time.

Stay the course, Japan.

-15 ( +13 / -28 )

Bob FosseToday  05:46 pm JST

Your ‘definition’ varies wildly across countries, religions, states, cities. 

There is no ‘definition’.

As this article is in a Japanese publication, the court case described takes place in Japan, and the ruling is upholding Japan's ban on same-sex marriage, sounds like the definition is a fact the Japanese court took into consideration in making its decision.

Sorry--facts don't care about feelings.

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

Sanity prevails.

The courts cannot change the laws regarding Same sex marriage. Only the government can, and there is ceetainly no mass public support for lawmakers to change this any time soon.

-16 ( +22 / -38 )

Excellent decision.

-19 ( +24 / -43 )

girl_in_tokyoToday  05:33 pm JST

You act like this is a statement of fact and not a personal opinion. 

It is a fact; definitions are factual.

Everyone should be allowed to marry the person they love. Everyone.

Different issue. At the same time, the word "marry" is for a man and women. So, again, by definition everyone cannot marry everyone.

Anything less is bigotry.

Sounds like a personal opinion, not a statement of fact.

-20 ( +10 / -30 )

Good!

-23 ( +20 / -43 )

Osaka court rules same-sex marriage ban not unconstitutional

By definition, marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, same-sex marriage is wrong even before it gets to the point of legal review.

-26 ( +29 / -55 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites