Ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, Sapporo High Court rules(japantimes.co.jp)
japantimes.co.jp
Ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, Sapporo High Court rules
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/03/14/japan/crime-legal/same-sex-marriage-ruling/
132 comments
> If my friend's partner was not the same sex as his, then he would be eligible to a spouse visa regardless of job status and could get permanent residence in as low as 3 years.
Bear in mind that the Japanese government's official rationale for allowing spouses to work freely is to allow foreigners in that position to support Japanese dependent family members. The fact that it applies to spouses of working adults without children is more of a legal accident than deliberate policy (the rules were set at a time when it was rare for women to have careers).
Bear in mind that the Japanese government's official rationale for allowing spouses to work freely is to allow foreigners in that position to support Japanese dependent family members. The fact that it applies to spouses of working adults without children is more of a legal accident than deliberate policy (the rules were set at a time when it was rare for women to have careers).
Seems like they could move this law to parental benefits with very little change in intent and effect. It would not change for the friend in the parent comment, but it would separate the law from the cultural concept of marriage. It would also eliminate the concept of sham marriage when used as a tool for immigration (I have no idea if that is common or not).
> Seems like they could move this law to parental benefits with very little change in intent and effect.
That wouldn't allow a foreign husband to work to support a Japanese wife, which is an important function of the current rules. Gender discrimination may be nominally illegal in Japan, but it's still quite hard for a woman, especially a married woman, to have a full career and get promoted etc..
That wouldn't allow a foreign husband to work to support a Japanese wife, which is an important function of the current rules. Gender discrimination may be nominally illegal in Japan, but it's still quite hard for a woman, especially a married woman, to have a full career and get promoted etc..
If we assume that the Japanese government's official view married women in japan without children as a dependent family members, then it is possible that immigration of foreign husband of those are an intended feature. It might also be that husband supporting such dependent family member is assumed to fall within the skilled labor category of immigrants.
> If we assume that the Japanese government's official view married women in japan without children as a dependent family members, then it is possible that immigration of foreign husband of those are an intended feature.
It absolutely is an intended feature - in part in order to make it easier for those women to have children, and in part so that they don't have to be supported by the state. Neither of those apply to OP's situation.
> It might also be that husband supporting such dependent family member is assumed to fall within the skilled labor category of immigrants.
It isn't. The visa deliberately allows doing any kind of work, including work for which it's impossible to get a work visa.
It absolutely is an intended feature - in part in order to make it easier for those women to have children, and in part so that they don't have to be supported by the state. Neither of those apply to OP's situation.
> It might also be that husband supporting such dependent family member is assumed to fall within the skilled labor category of immigrants.
It isn't. The visa deliberately allows doing any kind of work, including work for which it's impossible to get a work visa.
Yes. It's such a weird quirk, where the japanese denomination is for having a "dependent(配偶者) of Japanese national" while the english wording is just "spouse".
I think they're just stuck with the old japanese name and won't bother renaming it to something closer to reality.
I think they're just stuck with the old japanese name and won't bother renaming it to something closer to reality.
Note that the issues you're talking about are, in substance, really about immigration and the legalisms therein. They're not about marriage in itself. The fact that marriage comes with other immigration and residency privileges means that it enters the conversation often when immigration is the topic.
I'm not sure that it makes sense to alter marriage to solve immigration issues.
I'm not sure that it makes sense to alter marriage to solve immigration issues.
Yeah, countries could create extra mechanism to try to minimize discrimination in immigration, taxes, decisions in hospitals, renting/buying a place to live, inheritance, and many other issues that could not come to mind.
Or you could solve it by allowing same sex marriage. That sounds so much easier.
This is strictly my personal opinion, but I would be perfectly fine with renaming marriage to civil union as a whole in terms of law and giving the same rights to all couples independent of sex, leaving the term marriage for other uses outside of law.
However I understand the reasons why people would want to have same sex marriage named as so, I would also be perfectly fine with that.
Or you could solve it by allowing same sex marriage. That sounds so much easier.
This is strictly my personal opinion, but I would be perfectly fine with renaming marriage to civil union as a whole in terms of law and giving the same rights to all couples independent of sex, leaving the term marriage for other uses outside of law.
However I understand the reasons why people would want to have same sex marriage named as so, I would also be perfectly fine with that.
The issue they're talking about here is fairness, with immigration as
a concrete example. Simple and clean. How you think that fairness should be administered is up to you. If you want to advocate for removing immigration rules for naturalizing foreign spouses in Japan, just say that.
Regardless of immigration, marriage should be "altered" to give everyone the same rights. If that means getting rid of the legal concept of marriage entirely, so be it.
I could be wrong, but I'm sensing some false advocacy here. It seems like you're using immigration as a red herring - don't "alter" marriage, alter immigration laws instead! How about both?
Regardless of immigration, marriage should be "altered" to give everyone the same rights. If that means getting rid of the legal concept of marriage entirely, so be it.
I could be wrong, but I'm sensing some false advocacy here. It seems like you're using immigration as a red herring - don't "alter" marriage, alter immigration laws instead! How about both?
How about rights of care when your partner of 20 years can’t make medical decisions because your relationship is not recognised?
Or i inheritance rights when you pass away and you lifelong partner gets little or nothing because your relationship doesn’t mean anything to the state?
What about parenting rights?
And what about simply people who decide to commit to a relationship enjoy the same rights, privileges and duties as anyone else instead of making them second rate citizens unworthy of the protection and recognition of the state?
Or i inheritance rights when you pass away and you lifelong partner gets little or nothing because your relationship doesn’t mean anything to the state?
What about parenting rights?
And what about simply people who decide to commit to a relationship enjoy the same rights, privileges and duties as anyone else instead of making them second rate citizens unworthy of the protection and recognition of the state?
^ Yep, it's not a coincidence that the push for same-sex marriage in the US came right after the height of the AIDS crisis.
People were routinely denied the right to stay with (or even visit) their partners in the hospital, couldn't extend health insurance coverage to those partners to pay for rising treatment costs, and had little control over those partners' estates after they died.
Hence John Boskovich's "Feel It Motherfuckers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Fan_(Feel_It_Motherfu...
People were routinely denied the right to stay with (or even visit) their partners in the hospital, couldn't extend health insurance coverage to those partners to pay for rising treatment costs, and had little control over those partners' estates after they died.
Hence John Boskovich's "Feel It Motherfuckers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Fan_(Feel_It_Motherfu...
Can't you sign power of attorney papers, explicitly list people in a will, and name guardians for children? It sounds like it's just not implicit or automatic (which is obviously desirable). Is that correct or am I off base?
> Can't you sign power of attorney papers, explicitly list people in a will, and name guardians for children? It sounds like it's just not implicit or automatic. Is that correct or am I off base?
There are some things that aren't replicable easily, some things that are more difficult to deal with because institutions are more used to dealing with marriage, there are recognition issues and anticipation issues because both the things covered and the legal forms necessary to acheive them differ by jurisdiction, and may not have the degree of mutual recognition marriage does, and there are innmost jurisdictions a very large number of things that this applies to so it complex, potentially costly, and leave lots of room for error to get everything yoj can do by contract.
And there are things you still can't duplicate at all because they are, e.g., benefits conditioned directly on marriage by the state or a third party, so contract between the parties outside of marriage has no effect on them.
There are some things that aren't replicable easily, some things that are more difficult to deal with because institutions are more used to dealing with marriage, there are recognition issues and anticipation issues because both the things covered and the legal forms necessary to acheive them differ by jurisdiction, and may not have the degree of mutual recognition marriage does, and there are innmost jurisdictions a very large number of things that this applies to so it complex, potentially costly, and leave lots of room for error to get everything yoj can do by contract.
And there are things you still can't duplicate at all because they are, e.g., benefits conditioned directly on marriage by the state or a third party, so contract between the parties outside of marriage has no effect on them.
> Is that correct or am I off base?
Very off base. Requiring gay couples to jump through hurdles to access the rights and privileges afforded to straight couples is not equality.
Very off base. Requiring gay couples to jump through hurdles to access the rights and privileges afforded to straight couples is not equality.
Technically yes, but even those workarounds are hard-won rights and not always honored: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Guardianship_of_Kowalski
If we really stuck to the definition, "marriage" as a legal status would make no sense and should have no impact on how the gov. is treating you (fundamentally, why should the gov. care about who your heart belongs to?)
So discussions are bound to be about the perks that have nothing to do with marriage per se, but are bundled with the marriage status, and are harder or impossible to get outside of it. Opening marriage to more people is a more reasonable proposition than rewriting every single marriage perk to be more open to everyone.
So discussions are bound to be about the perks that have nothing to do with marriage per se, but are bundled with the marriage status, and are harder or impossible to get outside of it. Opening marriage to more people is a more reasonable proposition than rewriting every single marriage perk to be more open to everyone.
For some context I find interesting, Taiwan was the first country in Asia to legalize same sex marriage using a similar method of courts declaring that it was illegal for same sex marriage to not be legal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Taiwan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Taiwan
simpletone(2)
I know nothing about the legal system in Japan, so I am asking: why several courts rule independently on the same matter? Is there a supreme court that decides or not? What are the next steps?
And the other question is: what is a marriage in legal terms in Japan? In Europe marriage was originally a religious thing, officiated by priests and managed by the church; then the states stole the term to use it for a civil contract, officiated by civil servants (usually the mayor) with laws and courts managing it. For Japan, which one is in the courts?
And the other question is: what is a marriage in legal terms in Japan? In Europe marriage was originally a religious thing, officiated by priests and managed by the church; then the states stole the term to use it for a civil contract, officiated by civil servants (usually the mayor) with laws and courts managing it. For Japan, which one is in the courts?
> In Europe marriage was originally a religious thing, officiated by priests and managed by the church
Previously, not originally. In ancient Greece it was a state matter: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Greece>
Previously, not originally. In ancient Greece it was a state matter: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Greece>
Legal marriage in Japan is purely civil, administered by the municipality. Religious marriage ceremonies have purely religious effects (which is surely what you'd expect; legal processes are run by the legal system, religious processes are run by the religious system, render unto Cesar and all that).
In my country legal and religious marriage are strongly related: you cannot get married in the church until you get married in front of the mayor. So it is not that obvious as you suggest it is.
You wrote, "then the states stole the term" as though religions own the idea. Religions shouldn't dictate law, and where they don't, whether you can get married in a church means nothing.
That's how it should be, unless you're cool with the idea of the possibility of some other religion becoming the law in your land.
That's how it should be, unless you're cool with the idea of the possibility of some other religion becoming the law in your land.
I don't care about religion, but if the church invented the notion of marriage a thousand year ago why not let them use it and for state affairs use a distinct term? I would not consider the religion to be any sort of law in the land, just have a copyright on the "marriage" as a wine maker can have (ex: DOC). People who believe in a religion can have their marriage, people that don't practice a religion can have something called differently because it is differently. Religious marriage in my country has zero legal implications, it is just a ceremony in the church.
> if the church invented the notion of marriage
It didn't. Specially not the Christian church. The Christian bible was the basis for the christian religion. It was written before the religion existed. And it already mentions married people.
We have evidence of marriage going back to the 2300's BC. And it probably existed before that, we just didn't find the evidence yet.
It didn't. Specially not the Christian church. The Christian bible was the basis for the christian religion. It was written before the religion existed. And it already mentions married people.
We have evidence of marriage going back to the 2300's BC. And it probably existed before that, we just didn't find the evidence yet.
> if the church invented the notion of marriage a thousand year ago
Well, first the notion of marriage is a tad older than a thousand years, to claim it's only that old is remarkably ahistorical. Second, which church? Many religious and non-religious institutions have had some notion of marriage for quite a while. Which one gets to claim first rights and to have the proper definition and why do they get to keep making that distinction today for people who aren't members of their church/religion?
Well, first the notion of marriage is a tad older than a thousand years, to claim it's only that old is remarkably ahistorical. Second, which church? Many religious and non-religious institutions have had some notion of marriage for quite a while. Which one gets to claim first rights and to have the proper definition and why do they get to keep making that distinction today for people who aren't members of their church/religion?
Nah, we have very few writing from the Celts, but they did practice marriage and divorce (the woman took back her parents' bride price, and could divorce if her husband talked about their sex life. The husband could divorce if his wife insulted his beard). The also had concubinage contracts, probably with at least one-to-many, maybe many-to-many.
It was purely legal/civil matter, because religious matters weren't written down. So marriage was in fact not religious originally.
I've gotten that from Peter Berresford Ellis' books, which contains much more than that, and paint Celts as a more refined society than the greco-roman one.
It was purely legal/civil matter, because religious matters weren't written down. So marriage was in fact not religious originally.
I've gotten that from Peter Berresford Ellis' books, which contains much more than that, and paint Celts as a more refined society than the greco-roman one.
It's worth noting that it's still a religious thing as well. It's just that if you want to claim the governmental benefits that accrue to people the state considers married, well, you'll need the state to say you're married.
And unless you live in a world where words can be owned by an entity, nobody "stole" anything. Many marriages still get both the official paper (civil contract) and the sacrament. They mean a similar thing, and humans being humans means they use the same word.
(It's also not "usually the mayor", btw - that depends on the country. In Germany it's e.g usually the "Standesbeamte". A government official that does the job of a registrar. Mayors can only do the job if they've also been appointed to that role)
And unless you live in a world where words can be owned by an entity, nobody "stole" anything. Many marriages still get both the official paper (civil contract) and the sacrament. They mean a similar thing, and humans being humans means they use the same word.
(It's also not "usually the mayor", btw - that depends on the country. In Germany it's e.g usually the "Standesbeamte". A government official that does the job of a registrar. Mayors can only do the job if they've also been appointed to that role)
The Christian idea of marriage is a further evolution of ancient Roman laws and customs. Roman marriage was fundamentally a civil contract between families. Like any contract, it could be severed. Either by the people in question or by the heads of their families. Early Christians took the Roman idea of monogamy and added a new idea that marriage is sacred and unbreakable.
What a weird way to look at it. States “stole” the term “marriage”? Sorry, that’s not how any of it ever worked.
It's maybe oddly phrased, but in much of Europe, the state did assume power over marriage from the church at some point. Sometimes very dramatically, such as during the French Revolution, when priests were banned from marrying people in the traditional manner and people were compelled to register their marriages with the government. I can see why one might describe that as stealing marriage from the church; or if not stealing, then perhaps expropriation.
Until 100 years ago there was no civil marriage in my country and no civil laws regarding marriage, it was just some penal law punishing polygamy. Then the state took ownership of the notion of marriage by regulating it by law and forbidding churches to perform marriage ceremonies unless you get married by the state, so the religious marriage is just a ceremony with no legal implications these days.
So yes, the state stole the term. It's like tomorrow the state decides by law that everything that color red will be called color blue, that would be stealing the word "blue" and use it to define the color of red things. It is not a natural evolution of language.
So yes, the state stole the term. It's like tomorrow the state decides by law that everything that color red will be called color blue, that would be stealing the word "blue" and use it to define the color of red things. It is not a natural evolution of language.
> So yes, the state stole the term
But if you keep going back, you get to a time before the church controlled marriages in Europe.
Generally, marriage is a cultural thing, and it tends to be religious at any point in time to the extent the culture is religious at that time.
But if you keep going back, you get to a time before the church controlled marriages in Europe.
Generally, marriage is a cultural thing, and it tends to be religious at any point in time to the extent the culture is religious at that time.
Yes, there was a time then marriage exist before religion, but it was not regulated by the state. The evolution would be unregulated->church->state. I think the unregulated and church ones are very close in term of legal implications (almost none), while the state is severely intervening and basically destroyed it in recent years.
The concept of marriage existed long before churches as a social contract.
Such a shame that Japan is so modern in some ways and so backwards in others. They really need a better attitude towards gay couples.
Also some of the comments on this are pretty sad, but I'm not really that surprised. Peeps are still plenty homophobic in 2024.
Also some of the comments on this are pretty sad, but I'm not really that surprised. Peeps are still plenty homophobic in 2024.
theodorejb(7)
nikolay(12)
I love the fact that the ruling came from a court in a location called Sapporo (Sapphic)
For some people the difference in rights might feel small but there are certain edge cases when it makes a big difference. If my friend's partner was not the same sex as his, then he would be eligible to a spouse visa regardless of job status and could get permanent residence in as low as 3 years.