Woman sues Hokkaido gov't for not giving benefits to same-sex couples

Imagine that! The old heads in charge need to realize this is 2021, not 1940. Times have changed and their thinking has not!

Applied twice and still denied. The bean counter or counters in charged must have personal problem with these minorities. Now the tax payer is face with a damage bill plus back payments because this bean counter is a racist. Sack the bean counter who denied both applications and settle out of court with this victim of racism.

Same sex couples are a minority but in many countries they have majority support. Time for Japan to catch up again.

Grass-roots change is how change is often effected in Japan. LGBTQ rights are being handled in this manner.

Its not a marriage, its a partnership, but regardless they deserve the benefits

Dear Sasaki San, you will probably have to wait another 2 to 3 years before the court hears your case, then you will most certainly appeal, then you will have to wait another 3 to 4 years before a higher court hears your case, then you will most certainly appeal, or give up which I hope you to do NOT, then you will have to go to the supreme court of Japan, by then you will be about 60 years of age, and then by an act of GOD you may get lucky and get the court to hear your case in 5 to 8 years, around your 70th birthday. Good Luck and I hope you get JUSTICE.

"Woman sues Hokkaido gov't for not giving benefits to same-sex couples"

Why would same sex people get the same rights as married people?

This woman needs to wait longer.

Doesn’t she realize the Olympic Marathon is the number one priority in Hokkaido right now?

They don’t have time to solve any other problems.

It’s the marathon, and then everything else…….

I hope more people like her do step up to the dinosaurs though, everyone should do this.

Why would same sex people get the same rights as married people?

Why wouldn't they? They are married like any other married couple. They should have the same tax and inheritance benefits and be able to make medical decisions for each other just as hetero married couples do. Treat these marriages equally under the law.

@ Michael Machida: Why would same sex people get the same rights as married people

Ever heard of equality? Not privileges, equality. Also, because a couple is a couple. Married or not, being a couple is based on love and compassion. Marriage itself is only a piece of paper requiring no more than a trip to the shiyakushou and an inkan.

I'm pleased to hear this ruling.

Why would same sex people get the same rights as married people?

Because sometimes it's not appropriate for pure ignorance and discrimination to be allowed to continue.

Maybe some rules and laws as they are currently written do not cover certain situations. That's because when they were written the world was a different place and we didn't have the foresight to know how attitudes and society would change.

Well, here we are in a slightly different world, and society has changed. Therefore it's time to update rules and laws to make sure they do not discriminate against any people.

And no, before anyone says it, this doesn't mean we should be granting equal rights to those who want to marry their dog - because it's not socially acceptable to marry a dog.

In March, the Sapporo court ruled for the first time in the country that the central government's failure to recognize same-sex marriage is unconstitutional as it violates the right to equality.

Good!

Same-sex couples are not legally recognized in Japan,

It's unfortunate that a law for that hasn't been passed yet.

But what exactly this is for then?

document recognizing her partnership issued by the Sapporo city government.

Why would same sex people get the same rights as married people?

I believe the issue being pointed to by this question is why would unmarried people get same rights as married people.

Some city governments took the first step of issuing "marriage certificates" to same-sex couples, but these are not legally binding, and therefore the city office employee cannot break the law and give them benefits. Thus, the next step for the government would be to make the certificates legally meaningful, then the same-sex married couples will have the same rights (and obligations). It is probably just a matter of time, but change is slow in Japan...

Even if they're an opposite sex couple they would still not be entitled to benefits for married couples if they're not married

As you’ve pointed out countless times before yet, selectively enforced, many of you, have an unwritten policy against the solitary use of Bold type.

To ‘insure a fair perception by all‘ of your efforts in moderating the comments, please edit or delete the entire post @8:27am:

"Woman sues Hokkaido gov't for not giving benefits to same-sex couples" - Why would same sex people get the same rights as married people? ” -

You’re correct. It’s tiresome on the eyes and consistent with the format used by the other comments.

They have a right to express an opinion but readers don’t need to see the entire Headline reposted in solitary Bold type, each and every time, with every comment made (frequently by that same user).

@ Michael Machida: Why would same sex people get the same rights as married people

Because they're human. Why shouldn't we treat them the same as other humans?

Good for her.

Those benefits are part of the compensation package. They're hers (and her common-law wife's).

I don't give a damn what country you're in, if you're an employer and you pull that, you're a scumbag.

What's next? You have to be straight to get paid for Golden Week?

I can hear the conversation behind the counter when she handed the application - ま、これできないなー。難しいですね。彼女は病気でしょだがね。I really don't get why they are being scared and so against of giving two people spousal rights. Right to getting information when the other one is in the hospital. And so on. Imagine a person of colour was denided this with Japanese spouse. Same situation.

Applied twice and still denied. The bean counter or counters in charged must have personal problem with these minorities. Now the tax payer is face with a damage bill plus back payments because this bean counter is a racist. Sack the bean counter who denied both applications and settle out of court w

Actually the "bean counter" did his job perfectly.

He counted two beans.

Application denied.

They can sue but I dont think it will do any good. Remember when marriage was between a man and a woman?

Same-sex couples are not legally recognized in Japan, and LGBT people are not granted the benefits enjoyed by straight couples such as medical visitation rights and the ability to make medical decisions for their partners, co-parenting rights and spousal income tax deductions.

It is interesting that in this claim the LGBT side refers to biological gender as a fact, while in other cases they claim that gender is only a question of self-identity.

So can they not just solve this issue by self-identifying as different-sex?

Or does someone here want it both ways ----- biological fact here, and personal identity there?

It is interesting that in this claim the LGBT side refers to biological gender as a fact, while in other cases they claim that gender is only a question of self-identity.

Oh, that's because you clearly misunderstood what you read. Sex is fixed at birth, gender is self-identity. They've been very consistent on this.

John-SanToday 07:29 am JST

Applied twice and still denied. The bean counter or counters in charged must have personal problem with these minorities. Now the tax payer is face with a damage bill plus back payments because this bean counter is a racist. Sack the bean counter who denied both applications and settle out of court with this victim of racism.

The guy at city hall is a racist going on the logic of this comment about the gay couple being denied benefits?

Guess that's left wing liberal logic for ya right there lol.

Nice to know how the commenters think and are not ashamed to show how clever they really are....

It is interesting that in this claim the LGBT side refers to biological gender as a fact, while in other cases they claim that gender is only a question of self-identity.

This isn't a political dispute it is a legal one. Self-identity has nothing to do with the case, the plaintiffs haven't raised it, the defendants haven't raised it, its not an issue The case is about whether same sex couples should be able to legally access benefits that opposite sex couples are granted access to.

So can they not just solve this issue by self-identifying as different-sex?

Why should they have to claim to be something they aren't, and don't want to be, in order to get benefits? This isn't a case involving transgender persons, its a case involving women who were born women and are still women and are not claiming to be anything other than women.

Or does someone here want it both ways ----- biological fact here, and personal identity there?

The plaintiffs haven't said anything at all about any of that. Stop putting words and ideas into their mouths. They want access to benefits as a same sex couple. If you can't think of a valid reason to deny them that, admit it and stop pretending the case is about stuff it clearly is not about.

I am not against if I can have several wives.

If it is a matter of love and not creating potentially the most stable nucleus of a family, then allow groups of family for anyone. It is called being modern.

Why would for instance visitation rights be limited to your spouse while you would like your best friend to be included ?

It should be customized if you want my opinion : sex with that person, love with those, fiscal group with these, medical rights for that group, etc.

That is what people want.

Personally speaking, I am against marriage to be defined as including homosexual couples. Because that was not the case before and I don't want ever to be seen as potentially gay. You shall not change definition of words that matter. I am all Ok for naming it special partnership ot any good name.

Please Japan in particular and many other countries, evolve to people's needs.

Referendum us one of the best tool to allow it or not.

I am not against if I can have several wives.

So your condition for allowing some people who are being denied rights that the rest of us here have, is that you must be allowed a right no one here has?

Yeah, because that makes sense, right?

Get 'em girl! Props To her for being so brave and making it on JT. Best of Luck !