national

Japan court rejects damages claim by woman over same-sex benefits

26 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments

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

But it was ruled unconstitutional.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

I am beyond the legality of this. I am a gay man, 30, and single, but should I ever find a man to share my life with, I think that it's not a lawyers issue, but more a compassionate one from a wrecked society (not only in Japan but everywhere)... empathy's gone.

-3 ( +13 / -16 )

Mean.

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

Sapporo city government's program recognizing same-sex partnerships

That's a weird translation euphemism of what's actually happening. Sapporo city "recognizes" jack squat. They have a "partnership pledge", introduced with flowery words about self-fulfillment and recognition of diversity. Same-sex couples can pledge their partnership in front of the mayor (insert mayor substitute here) and receive a certificate and a handy card.

The pledge does not create any legal rights or obligations.

Kaoru Sasaki

Her name is Kaworu Sasaki (佐々木カヲル).

5 ( +9 / -4 )

special benefits for employees working in cold regions

never heard! What is it????

regarding the lawsuit, as there is no definition of the word heterosexual, she should transform herself into a transgender and then create a heterosexual couple for a tax deduction scheme. should works...

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

The constitution of Japan clearly stipulates that marriage “shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes.” A prefectural government, however progressive its governor may be, cannot create a law, let alone one that overrides the supreme law.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

All the fanfare about Japan being a forward thinking country proven again to be nothing but lip service.

-12 ( +13 / -25 )

MeiyouwentiToday  05:59 pm JST

The Constitution has been made by Americans after the WAR that Japanese judges do not even understand .

spousal benefits was unconstitutional

as usual in Japanese judgment, there is no ground or explanation for this judgment.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

So basically, those certificates being handed by since municipalities, are but toy certificates to make people believe they have some kind of recognition.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

The constitution of Japan clearly stipulates that marriage “shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes.”

Nothing about this is about marriage.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

The constitution of Japan clearly stipulates that marriage “shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes.”

But these benefits also apply to non-married heterosexual couples. Marriage doesn't come into it.

Seems more than a bit unfair that the living benefits cannot be applied to this non-married same sex couple.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

only the lawyer won the money of the victim and the media appearance...

See you at Tatemae High Court, Supreme Court for more fun!

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

 Sapporo city government's program recognizing same-sex partnerships

Which has proven to be as useful as a chocolate teapot.

On the positive side however, the fact a program exists and societies attitude to same-sex marriage means progress, albeit glacially, is being made.

Besides the social equality issue, from an employment point of view, the Hokkaido prefectural government has shot itself in the foot by losing an employee who, in my experience of workplaces (and especially the civil service), provides a priceless flexibility (cover for maternity and paternity leave, sick children, regimented school holiday periods, weekends and overtime).

3 ( +7 / -4 )

There should be no financial benefits for being married. Married to a same sex partner or opposite sex partner.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

indigoToday  05:48 pm JST

special benefits for employees working in cold regions

never heard! What is it????

special allowance, I forget what it's called, but 'something 手当', which covers part of the monstrous heating bills in the looong harsh winters in Hokkaido. I used to get, I think, about 2 万 a month towards my oil bills, for perhaps 4 months of winter. dare say other parts of Japan have something similar.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

diagonalslipToday  07:31 pm JST

thanks!, who pay it? the government or company.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

If the benefits can be claimed by any same sex couple then that leaves the door open to benefit fraud and exploitation of a system previously set up for normal married couples. Every Tom Dick and Harry plus the rest are going to claim and it’s coming out of our taxes!

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

As they should

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

If the benefits can be claimed by any same sex couple then that leaves the door open to benefit fraud and exploitation of a system previously set up for normal married couples.

The benefits can be claimed by any unmarried heterosexual couple "in a de facto marital relationship". How does that not open the door to fraud then?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

""Sasaki's lawyers argued that the ruling contradicts a recent trend seen in other local governments in Japan, such as the Tokyo metropolitan government, which recognizes same-sex partners as spouses despite Japan's lack of legal recognition for same-sex partnerships.""

He has a point, if Japan recognizes Same - Sex partners then it's all the way or nothing at all, make up your mind Japan!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The constitution of Japan clearly stipulates that marriage “shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes.” A prefectural government, however progressive its governor may be, cannot create a law, let alone one that overrides the supreme law.

Again this one. That part of the constitution is meant to mean that both sexes have equality over the law, it was never meant to be a denial of same sex couples.

Not only that, there have already been multiple rulings that say that the current civil code for not giving equal rights to gay people is in violation of the constitution which you called "the supreme law".

And not even that, this case was about 事実婚, which is not codified marriage. In these cases, it is 100% open to interpretation of what actually constitutes 事実婚, and there are already many precedent cases in which 2 same sex people are recognized as been in 事実婚, so if the court didn't recognized it as such, is just because the court didn't want to interpret it that way.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

who pay it?

Usually no one, that's the whole point.

The benefits are tax deductions. So in other words, they had to pay more in taxes just for being gay.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Special privilege for straight people (or other preferential treated group) ought be eliminated. Have equality that way.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Good. This stuff has been common sense here in Massachusetts for decades. Not trying to beat my chest about it, it's not like I drafted those policies. But it does work very well here.

If someone in a M/F common-law arrangement can get the benefits, there's no reason that a common-law gay couple shouldn't get them. You've still got the root scenario: A human being who has lived and loved with another human being, who should be afforded the rights that Japanese society has already decided should be available to human beings in that situation. They just forgot to specify "ALL human beings" when they made those policies to begin with.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Thank you, Japan, for upholding the law, for upholding the actual meaning of equality (that the rights and restrictions of the law apply to all citizens the same), and the objective reality of what a marital relationship is, i.e. the union of one man and one woman.

This country has once again proven to be pro-marriage, which means it is pro-family, which means it is not walking down the path of social suicide.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Thank you, Japan, for upholding the law, for upholding the actual meaning of equality (that the rights and restrictions of the law apply to all citizens the same), and the objective reality of what a marital relationship is, i.e. the union of one man and one woman.

This country has once again proven to be pro-marriage, which means it is pro-family, which means it is not walking down the path of social suicide.

"Pro-marriage"? Huh?

This ruling has ZERO to do with being "pro-marriage", or about couples needing to be married. Unmarried heterosexual couples can claim these living benefits.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites