Japan high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

Right on.

Article 13 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness

I think there's more to it than that. Otherwise I could walk naked round the streets of Japan if it made me happy.

Article 13 also contains the phrase "to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare".

I think there's more to it than that. Otherwise I could walk naked round the streets of Japan if it made me happy.

Article 13 also contains the phrase "to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare".

Gee, I wonder if these high court judges took that into consideration.

I support the decision.

slippery slope

albaleoToday 05:18 pm JST

Article 13 also contains the phrase "to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare".

Same sex marriage doesn't interfere with the public welfare.

albaleoToday  05:18 pm JST

Article 13 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness

I think there's more to it than that. Otherwise I could walk naked round the streets of Japan if it made me happy.

Article 13 also contains the phrase "to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare".

In what way do you think same sex marriage interfere with public welfare ?

slippery slope

What's at the bottom of it?

Of the G7 countries, Japan remains the only bastion of sanity against the same-sex marriage insanity.

Which should mean that since the courts are ruling in favor of it, the Diet should be putting forth legislation to make it a law! But they wont, because they are a bunch of homophobes!

slippery slope

Obviously only for those who are insecure in their own sexuality that they have to put their noses into things that dont concern them!

Has same sex marriage personally harmed or affected any of you on here? Has it negatively affected your life in a tangible way other than simply thinking it’s wrong? Do none of you have any gay friends or is it just because I grew up in a rich liberal suburb on the east coast?

In what way do you think same sex marriage interfere with public welfare ?

I don't think that at all. I was just pointing out that it wasn't just the "happiness" part, otherwise we could do anything we wanted to.

Personally, I'd remove the legal status of "marriage" and introduce a new civil partnership arrangement for any two people. Marriage has all kinds of interpretations so perhaps best to keep it outside the law.

Dam time and its about time Japan welcomes love is love and is a civil contract and not a religious issue. Demand equality now.

Same sex marriage doesn't interfere with the public welfare

Uh, what? Marriage is fundamentally tied to the survival of society through procreation and the raising of future generations. Same-sex marriage *by definition can't contribute to the biological continuation of the species. I'd say that very much* interferes with public welfare.

District courts can rule however they like with rainbow-tinged symbolic gestures (over policies that support families and actually encourage childbirth), but at the end of the day, it will never be anything more.

Why? Because Japan realizes that redefining marriage to prioritize extreme minority adult desires over societal needs undermines its very purpose, which is to ensure the welfare and stability of future generations.

is it just because I grew up in a rich liberal suburb on the east coast?

Yep, pretty much.

Obviously only for those who are insecure in their own sexuality that they have to put their noses into things that dont concern them!

That's like saying if you're really against terrorism, you must be a closet terrorist.

Highly nonsensical.

Unfortunately for you, there's nothing "insecure" about defending the biological foundation of civilization.

Defending for who?

Humans. Sorry, did I not make that clear enough?

Biology 101, here we go: procreation requires the combination of male sperm and female egg. 

This inherent limitation for gays'N'lesbians underscores why heterosexual marriage has historically been central to societal survival and population continuity.

Hope this helps.

AMEN.

Again the government should keep it LONG Nose out of the people Bedrooms.

Biology 101, here we go: procreation requires the combination of male sperm and female egg. 

But not marriage.

This inherent limitation for gays'N'lesbians underscores why heterosexual marriage has historically been central to societal survival and population continuity.

So when will they make unconstitutional marriages between people who can't or don't to have kids? Should couples in which the woman has passed childbearing age have to get divorced so the man can remarry and procreate further?

Again the government should keep it LONG Nose out of the people Bedrooms.

Not according to Jay. They reckon that the government should be able to tell people who they can or can't marry. Well, some people. Jay is better than those people and should be able to do what he or she wants, apparently.

So when will they make unconstitutional marriages between people who can't or don't to have kids? Should couples in which the woman has passed childbearing age have to get divorced so the man can remarry and procreate further?

Thanks for the opportunity to share, Hawk. Now, here's the difference between apples and oranges: male-female marriages, regardless of age or fertility, uphold the institutional framework that supports the continuation of society through natural procreation. Gay unions biologically cannot contribute to that framework... no matter how much you squint at the science.

Does that make sense?

Not according to Jay. They reckon that the government should be able to tell people who they can or can't marry. Well, some people. Jay is better than those people and should be able to do what he or she wants, apparently.

Ouch. Now, here's the bottom line: marriage is a societal institution with a purpose: fostering stable families and, like it or not, ensuring the continuation of our species.

But hey, how about we reduce it to a free-for-all where anyone can marry anyone - or anything - because feelings! Tomorrow's headline, man marries XBox?? Come on Hawk, you're better than that.

There are millions of childless heterosexual couples. Are they to be condemned?

I like the fact that Japan tends to work these issues out through legal analysis rather than prejudice and ignorance.

Anyway, anything that gets the fundies and evangelicals in a rage is evidence of social progress.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson, talking about the existence or not of deities, who said "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". Seems like a good stance to take on same-sex marriage. If something about it bothers people, that says everything about them and nothing about the actual issue.