Disaster Japan’s same-sex marriage ban is constitutional, says Tokyo court: ‘A significant step backwards’ - The fags fear the samurai.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

In a blow to the Japanese LGBTQ+ community, a court has ruled the country’s ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional.

The decision handed down by Tokyo’s High Court on Friday (28 November) outlined that Japan‘s ban on equal marriage does not violate Article 24(1) and (2) or Article 14(1) of the Constitution.

The judgement is the final ruling in a series of six high court lawsuits on same-sex marriage that were filed between 2019 and 2021 in cities including Tokyo, Osaka and Sapporo. With all the high court decisions now made, a Supreme Court ruling is expected.

Judge Ayumi Higashi said a unit between a heterosexual couple and their children is a rational legal definition of a family and the exclusion of same-sex marriage is valid. Alongside this, the court also dismissed damages of one million yen ($6,400) which was sought by each of the couples in the lawsuits.

Speaking outside court, as quoted by the Associated Press, plaintiff Hiromi Hatogai said the decision left her “disappointed”: “Rather than sorrow, I’m outraged and appalled by the decision. Were the judges listening to us?”

Her partner, Shino Kawachi, said it was “difficult to comprehend”, adding: “What is justice? Was the court even watching us? Were they considering the next generation?”

“We only want to be able to marry and be happy, just like anyone else,” another plaintiff, Rie Fukuda, told reporters.

“I believe the society is changing. We won’t give up.”

Japan is the only G7 country that does not recognise equal marriage or offer legal protection to queer couples, whilst in wider Asia only Taiwan, Thailand and Nepal offer same-sex marriages.

Commenting on the decision, Amnesty International criticised the ruling and said it effectively means discrimination against LGBTQ+ couples in Japan is permissible under the law.

“The court’s decision today marks a significant step backwards for marriage equality in Japan,” Amnesty International’s East Asia researcher Boram Jang said.

“The ruling in Tokyo – the final high court ruling of six lawsuits filed across the country and the only ruling to say, in effect, that discrimination against same-sex couples is constitutional – cannot be allowed to hamper progress.

“But it should serve as a warning of the reluctance to acknowledge the concept of same-sex marriage and the reality of same-sex couples living in Japan.

“While these cases work their way to the Supreme Court, the government can resolve this issue through legislation without further delay.

“The Japanese government needs to be proactive in moving towards the legalisation of same-sex marriage so that couples can fully enjoy the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

“Japan remains the only G7 country without legal recognition for same-sex couples. The law passed by the government in 2023 to promote understanding of LGBTI people is not enough.

“There need to be solid, legal measures in place to protect same-sex couples and the LGBTI community in Japan from all forms of discrimination.”

Previously, in 2024, Sapporo District Court in northern Japan came to an opposite conclusion and ruled the civil code which limits marriage to between a man and a woman is “unconstitutional [and] discriminatory”.

“Enacting same-sex marriage does not seem to cause disadvantages or harmful effects,” the High Court said in its ruling, adding it was “strongly expected” that parliament would “institutionalise an appropriate law” in the future.

“Living in accordance with one’s gender identity and sexual orientation is an inalienable right rooted in important personal interests,” the court also said.

The Sapporo decision followed prior decisions by courts in Nagoya and Tokyo – a separate lawsuit to the one detailed above – which also declared the ban unconstitutional.

Now that each of the six high court cases are completed, Japan’s highest court – the Supreme Court of Japan – is expected to manage the appeals and make a final decision on the matter.

Research has previously shown that most of the Japanese population is in favour of legalising same-sex marriage, with an opinion poll from 2023 revealing that two-thirds of Japanese people believe equal marriage should be legally recognised.

However, the legalisation of same-sex marriage still looks set to be a long way off, with Japan’s first female prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, has expressed opposition to same-sex marriage, describing it as a “very difficult problem” in the past.
 
Last edited:
Personally speaking, I don't think the State should be involved in marriage at all. The reason why same sex marriage is a thing is simply a logical extension of the State's involvement in marriage. If you have State involvement in marriage, it's going to happen eventually. I'm in favor of it, only as it pertains to gaining the legal benefits of being in such an arrangement (tax benefits, property benefits, etc.). This is why people sperg out about "hooman rites®" with regards to this issue.

Ideally, the State shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. It should be churches and private religious institutions that are involved in marriage. This isn't just my position, it's a position that many religious people hold as well.
What would be much funnier is for the state to get out of marriage entirely, then create a beneficial tax status solely for naturally reproductive long term couples which isn't marriage, and thus is far more restrictive in who it can apply to.

Encourage nuclear family formation while grinning and saying "but you can get married!"

The family court industry might take issue with that though.
 
Yeah when I was young I thought sure why not it's their business if fags wanna get married and be recognized legally as married

Then I saw how it was really nothing more than the good old thin end of the wedge
 
The Nips have done it. They've closed the gates of Hell on their side.

Because it seems as soon as you cater to fags, that is when Clownworld starts up not too long after.

View attachment 8226900
You know that episode of The Twilight Zone where a guy took shelter overnight in a monastery, and set Satan free from his prison cell because the devil seemed so much more sympathetic and honest than the jailkeeper?
I think about that episode a lot these days.

Millennials thought they knew everything, but we were completely naive. I also wonder how many of us were incensed for our "normal" gay friends, who in turn spent the last 20 years grooming kids on discord.
 
I don't know why we care about that. If the state doesn't keep track of marriage things, then who cares if some nutter claims to have multiple wives? Nothing stops them from having their harems now if they want.
If the last decade or so is anything to go by, you will need some means of enforcement to keep people from careening off the deep end. It's all well and good to say the government has no business in marriage, but the modern world is becoming increasingly secularized and it's directly tied to propogation of citizenry and inheritance besides. There is absolutely incentive for the government to not pay you for faggotry when your elderly are becoming more common than replacement rate. Unless you think replacement migration via street shitters and bulbheads will help you out, keeping a culturally homogenous and stable population is necessary for a functional state.
 
If the last decade or so is anything to go by, you will need some means of enforcement to keep people from careening off the deep end. It's all well and good to say the government has no business in marriage, but the modern world is becoming increasingly secularized and it's directly tied to propogation of citizenry and inheritance besides. There is absolutely incentive for the government to not pay you for faggotry when your elderly are becoming more common than replacement rate. Unless you think replacement migration via street shitters and bulbheads will help you out, keeping a culturally homogenous and stable population is necessary for a functional state.
The reason for low birthrates and low marriage rates is not the lack of incentives for those things; the reason is poor economic and/or social conditions. In Japan, they work far too much, so no one has the time or resources to raise a family. In the West, it has become increasingly difficult to support a family or even oneself without working long hours, especially as companies try to outsource everything to pajeets and Pedro from over the border fence.

If governments focused on fixing these conditions rather than trying to bribe people to settle down and have children, there might actually be more children!

Heterosexuality is normal; we don't need tax breaks to incentivize it.
 
Ideally, the State shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. It should be churches and private religious institutions that are involved in marriage. This isn't just my position, it's a position that many religious people hold as well.
If we have that, we're gonna end up with Sharia law situations in many places, It's not like many countries don't have that, but it would be official because the state would be saying "I don't care".

Here, to get married, you first have to announce it through the official newspaper of the country so if anyone has any objection, they can make it before. Then, you have to be married by the Mayor of your district, and only then, you can get officially married by the Church because the Church marriage (or any religious marriage) has no legal validity. They might be able to marry you from a sacramental perspective, but it has no legal value.

If you think about it, it works backwards too. If you don't want the state to be involved, then churches can't be involved with the law, hence, the religious weddings are ceremonies that have no value for the state because anyone can make their own religion and say they just got married, but the state doesn't have to accept it. Because here they're somehow separated, it's two different things we need to do individually, but verifying the legal situation of the groom and bride before even considering doing it for the church.
 
Good luck convincing a society with failing birth rates they NEED faggots to buttfuck each other or else it's a violation of "human rights" or whatever.
It's not rectal packing ladyboys that's the issue. It's forcing a Shinto priest to provide lubrication.

It's not like fags adhere to the duties marriage ascribes on to men and women
 
Why is the journo seething? I thought they were culture-respecters who dislike imposing western colonial values on others?
 
If the last decade or so is anything to go by, you will need some means of enforcement to keep people from careening off the deep end. It's all well and good to say the government has no business in marriage, but the modern world is becoming increasingly secularized and it's directly tied to propogation of citizenry and inheritance besides. There is absolutely incentive for the government to not pay you for faggotry when your elderly are becoming more common than replacement rate. Unless you think replacement migration via street shitters and bulbheads will help you out, keeping a culturally homogenous and stable population is necessary for a functional state.
But it's no fun and people won't do it unless they're given an incentive. Once marriage becomes a devalued commodity (thanks to fags getting married and to no-fault divorce,) people will see it - and having kids - as an unnecessary complication.
 
Japanese people: “Gay people corrupt society”.

Also Japanese people: “Lolicon/shotacon hentai being sold publicly in manga stores should remain legal.”
 
Back
Top Bottom