Advertisement

Japanese high court rules lack of same-sex marriage recognition unconstitutional

Plaintiffs hold a banner before the ruling on same-sex marriage at the Tokyo District Court in Tokyo on Thursday. Photo by Jiji Press/EPA-EFE
Plaintiffs hold a banner before the ruling on same-sex marriage at the Tokyo District Court in Tokyo on Thursday. Photo by Jiji Press/EPA-EFE

March 14 (UPI) -- A Japanese high court said on Thursday the government has violated its constitution's right to equality by not legally recognizing same-sex marriage.

The ruling by the Sapporo High Court backed a 2021 decision by a lower court saying that the lack of protections went against Article 14 of the Japanese constitution.

Advertisement

The court, however, rejected giving three couples that filed the lawsuit $40,600 in damages for emotional distress. The lower court also denied the couples, all from Hokkaido, compensation in the original case as well.

The Japanese government had argued that Article 24 of its constitution said that marriage "shall be based on the mutual consent of parties of both sexes," and thus does not include same-sex marriage.

Amnesty International said Thursday's ruling was a "step forward" for Japan in recognizing same-sex marriage.

"The ruling in Sapparo, the first high court decision on same-sex marriage in the country, emphatically shows the trend towards acceptance of same-sex marriage in Japan," said Boram Jang, the East Asia researcher for Amnesty International.

"These rulings make clear that such discrimination has no place in Japanese society. The Japanese government now needs to be proactive in moving towards the legalization of same-sex marriage so that couples can fully enjoy the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts."

Advertisement

Last June, Japan's lower house passed a bill of understanding regarding legal protections of sexual minorities there. The bill says that there should be "no unfair discrimination" based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Some Japanese political parties, though, said the bill does not go far enough in providing protections.

Latest Headlines