Osaka High Court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

Fantastic news again. Looking forward to when (not if, as it is a forgone conclusion) my partner and I can finally celebrate our marriage and have equality. And for anyone who is posting negative comments, I ask again, how does our marriage impact negatively on anyone (logical answers only required)?Well done Japan.

Amazing! Time to legalize same-sex marriages in Japan.

I ask again, how does our marriage impact negatively on anyone (logical answers only required)?

You're asking "logical answers" from people who think their feelings matter more than actual facts. They have none to give. Just trolls, jealousy and hate.

giru...buddy ..this is JT comments section...no "logical answers " required.

Best wishes...but I might add...be careful what you wish for...marriage no guarantee of a happy life...

The fifth high court in Japan to rule that the country's lack of legal recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

So how many such rulings does it take? Just legalize it already!

be careful what you wish for...marriage no guarantee of a happy life...

This is true. Remember, though, you can always just get a dog or cat or some other friendly mammal as a Plan B!

Time for the conservative politicians to "deeply reflect" on the court's ruling and then stonewall.

However, I am glad to see a reasoned decision from the court.

Doesn't make sense. This is what Japan's constitution says: "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.

With regard to choice of spouse, property rights, inheritance, choice of domicile, divorce and other matters pertaining to marriage and the family, laws shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes."

Marriage here is clearly considered from the point of view of the relationship between a man and a woman, otherwise it's no longer based on the mutual consent of both sexes and the cooperation of husband and wife.

Equality of the sexes is about equality between man and woman, not about equality between same sex and opposite sex couples. Individual dignity can of course be interpreted in a broad way, but if you are going to interprete this as supporting same sex marriage, you might as well use it to support marriages between siblings or polyamorous relationships too then.

Time and time again. The objective of marriage is lost. It's not to recognize your love for someone, and it's not to legitimize your lifestyle. It is to prove a safe heaven for family, the nucleus of society to take place. Where traditionally a care provider inside the household brings lesser income in lieu of having to tend to the household, therefore being afforded tax breaks and protections. Also, it permits the protections for the offspring to be born…

Oh dear, I did ask for logical reasons, but it appears that I was silly in doing so. I could argue back with the idea of infertile opposite sex couples and elderly couples getting married, but I doubt you’d see the logic. As for the birth rate, I am at a loss how allowing same-sex marriage impacts that, as it does not. The birth rate is a problem of heterosexual couples…logic, you see.

I agree with the court’s decision.

Same-sex marriages or partnerships have zero effect on male-female marriages.

Research indicates that legalizing same-sex marriage or partnerships does not negatively impact male-female marriage rates or stability. In fact, some studies suggest slight increases in heterosexual marriage after the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Interesting comments about the birth deficit. Preventing same sex couples from marrying isn’t going to magically make them straight and marry the opposite sex and procreate so it would be no different than it is now. But I’m sure there are many loving financially well off same sex couples who would love to adopt some of the thousands of children sitting in “children’s homes” across the country. And let’s face it guys, gay individuals in first world countries are, on average, better educated and in the higher income bracket.

There have been no problems in 38 countries that allow same-sex marriages. Including many in Europe, North and South America, and Oceania.

The high court judges are pretty selective in their interpretation of the Constitution. The article 24 clearly stipulates that “Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes”.And “both sexes” here unambiguously means man and woman. The court cannot change the supreme law. Only people and people’s elected representatives can.

Then, is the Constitution itself "unconstitutional"? Now that's some pretzel logic!