national

Couples in first hearing on same-sex marriage say they are 'not special'

33 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

33 Comments
Login to comment

I wish you and your boyfriend the very best of luck. Will you be married in the States?

Oh! I get it!! (slaps knee) You're suggesting that I am gay like you! Funny guy!

No, I was talking about my high-school girlfriend.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zichiApr. 16 07:30 pm JST

When same-sex couples are allowed to “be married“ I demand the right to be married to whoever, whatever I wish. it would be my ride, after all.

Same sex marriages are available in many countries including first, which was first in Europe.

It first occurred in Denmark in 1989, between 2 men. They were already at least middle aged.

Strangerland

Apr. 16 07:54 pm JST

When same-sex couples are allowed to “be married“ I demand the right to be married to whoever, whatever I wish. it would be my ride, after all.

As long as both parties are able to consent, and do so, why not

As long as they are two adults. Some countries like Saudi Arabia have child marriages (legally!), and even some cults in America have teen girls married to adult men. In some US states that is still legal too. And 16 is just too young.

Any kind of marriage should be between two adults. Anything else is perverse, destructive and should be verboten.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great! And as zichi pointed out, same sex garriage is available in many countries. Why no polygamous relationships allowed there?

Um, because pretty much no one is pushing for it I would imagine.

But don't let us stop you, if it's something you feel you really want to do, keep pushing for it.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

When same-sex couples are allowed to “be married“ I demand the right to be married to whoever, whatever I wish. it would be my ride, after all.

Ride is slang for sexual intercourse in some countries. With that in mind, it would be not just yours, after all.

Of course, with the rate things are going with progressively minded marriages, we can get married normally before our current relationship is recognized

I wish you and your boyfriend the very best of luck. Will you be married in the States?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as both parties are able to consent, and do so, why not?

Good. I can't wait to wed my high school sweatheart! Of course, with the rate things are going with progressively minded marriages, we can get married normally before our current relationship is recognized.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Polyamorous marriage cannot happen until same sex marriage is first legal. So let’s work on that first then we can figure out a way for you to marry your boyfriends.

Great! And as zichi pointed out, same sex garriage is available in many countries. Why no polygamous relationships allowed there?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

And if three parties consent to a tri-marriage, why not?

If a man loves two women and each of them love him, why deny the 3 of them to be together.

Polyamorous marriage cannot happen until same sex marriage is first legal. So let’s work on that first then we can figure out a way for you to marry your boyfriends.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

As long as both parties are able to consent, and do so, why not?

And if three parties consent to a tri-marriage, why not?

If a man loves two women and each of them love him, why deny the 3 of them to be together.

How cruel.

Let love prevail.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

When same-sex couples are allowed to “be married“ I demand the right to be married to whoever, whatever I wish. it would be my ride, after all.

As long as both parties are able to consent, and do so, why not?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

When same-sex couples are allowed to “be married“ I demand the right to be married to whoever, whatever I wish. it would be my ride, after all.

Same sex marriages are available in many countries including first, which was first in Europe.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

When same-sex couples are allowed to “be married“ I demand the right to be married to whoever, whatever I wish. it would be my ride, after all.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I think marriage as an institution is on the way out. I think more informal arrangements will prevail in the future.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Great news, we are all normal and there is no need for discrimination.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Abolish all marriages only allowing for a civil union.

LUL

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Abolish all marriages only allowing for a civil union.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

the constitution should not be changed, what should be changed is the definition of marriage and a common law partnership. Marriage or getting a "Mar(y) by a man who wants to make a family, family is a family if it includes at least one child, is not the same as two people of the same or different sex living together in a emotional and financial partnership. The law should accord same duties and privileges to the any couple that register as a common law partners regardless of the sexs. Separately the Heterosexual couples after the birth of at least one offspring should be allowed the status of a family with whatever duties and benefits that carries by agreed laws. While I see a benefit of the child adoption by qualified couples of same sex I only see it as a viable solution if there is no opposite sex couples available because ideally having two parents of the different sex is better and more natural for a child. About being no different than the rest of the people? I wish that where but then I do not want to participate in heterosexual pride parade I would rather pride myself on my head than on my you know what.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"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."

If I were the judge I would say this clause does not explicitly state that a marriage must be between members of opposite sex. Therefore, marriage between any two people should be allowed.

However, the actual judges here will claim the opposite. These are the same judges who will also rule that the clause "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained." allows Japan to maintain "self defence" forces. In any case, no logical, or rational explanation will be provided because the judges make it up as they go along.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It might happen. A few years ago, Abe's wife rode in a van in the Tokyo Pride parade. That might mean something.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

VERY confusing use of "right" do you mean correct and proper? Or do you mean that they are slow to recognize new trends?

It's not confusing if you know anything Japanese politics, "right" means off the deep end of being overly conservative.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

YubaruToday 06:45 am JST

I wish them luck. Japanese courts have a strong tendency to fall over to the "right" on social issues.

Also I get the feeling, (no proof) the judges are going to be looking through the newspapers to judge the pulse of the people before handing down a judgement.

Either that or a call to Abe for his "opinion"

VERY confusing use of "right" do you mean correct and proper? Or do you mean that they are slow to recognize new trends?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I partner and I would of loved to adopt a child years ago. At that time gay marriages were unthinkable. It’s a shame as we are too old now.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Good for them if that is what makes them happy let them get married we are in the year 2019 after all.....

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Either that or a call to Abe for his "opinion"

Judicial independence anyone? If a judge solicits an opinion from the head of the executive branch before issuing a ruling, that's going to undermine the very principle of the separation of powers. If Japanese judges actually do this, it's a travesty.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Great for them! I hope they continue to stick together and have their special day.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

"Impact litigations" such as this are pretty common in the U.S., but in Japan it is not as effective. For one thing, the Japanese judiciary does not "legislate from the bench," so to speak, as Japan does not rely on precedence in court rulings like they do in the Anglo-Saxon common law tradition. The only entity in the judicial branch that can nullify unconstitutional laws or to make any binding case law is the Supreme Court, and even then, the law can only change after the Diet enacts a new law to change the unconstitutional portions of the existing law.

To add to this, Japanese judges tend to rule based on moralistic arguments, rather than the actual merit of the arguments presented by the parties.

On the flip side of it, Japan tends to respect international treaties it signs and ratifies, unlike the United States (which almost always ignores any international commitment that is inconvenient to them) and gives a force of binding law. If UN comes up something more concrete and binding than the Yogyakarta Declaration (which is just as toothless as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, being an aspirational document), Japan will have to follow it.

Otherwise, LDP will have to go before any progress on LGBTQ rights can move forward.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Couples in first hearing on same-sex marriage say they are 'not special'

And indeed they're not "special". Look at the photo of these people - they look just like everyone else - they're not horned demons, not crazed sex maniacs, not anything to be scared of. They're just normal people, who happen to fancy people of their own gender.

C'mon Japan. Do your gay citizens a favour, and allow them the same rights as your heterosexual ones.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

"Recognizing gay marriage equality means that the next generation won't have to feel the self-hate that I had when I was younger," Sato added.

Lets recognize their garriage!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I wish them luck, and success. They should have the parental rights, legal, next-of-kin, and inheritance rights, as heterosexuals do.

I remain optimistic about this, since local governments have already been paving the way in small ways.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

If they changed a few words of the law (as if they would!), would it resolve the issue?

Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes — people and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife — each spouse as a basis.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I read a meme the other day. “In Canada we don’t call it gay marriage, we just call it marriage. If it’s not hockey, no one cares which team you play for”.

20 ( +24 / -4 )

I hope the introduction of same sex marriage and increased adoption of children by same sex couples drive improvements in the Japanese family law system. Joint custody anybody?

With an enforcement mechanism.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

I hope the introduction of same sex marriage and increased adoption of children by same sex couples drive improvements in the Japanese family law system. Joint custody anybody?

10 ( +19 / -9 )

I wish them luck. Japanese courts have a strong tendency to fall over to the "right" on social issues.

Also I get the feeling, (no proof) the judges are going to be looking through the newspapers to judge the pulse of the people before handing down a judgement.

Either that or a call to Abe for his "opinion"

11 ( +20 / -9 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites