Japan's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage unconstitutional, court finds
A Japanese high court ruled Friday that Japan's refusal to legally recognize same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, the latest victory for same-sex couples and their supporters seeking equal rights.
Friday's decision by the Nagoya High Court, in central Japan, marks the ninth victory out of 10 rulings since the first group of plaintiffs filed lawsuits in 2019.
The decision was also the fourth high court ruling in a row to find the current government policy unconstitutional, after similar decisions in Tokyo, Fukuoka and Sapporo.
After a fifth court ruling expected later this month in Osaka, the Supreme Court is expected to handle all five appeals and make a decision.
The Nagoya court said Friday that not allowing same-sex couples the legal right to marry violates a constitutional guarantee of equality. The court also upheld the right to individual dignity and the essential equality of both sexes.
The current civil law, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, is discrimination based on sexual orientation and lacks rationality, the ruling said.
The government has argued that marriage under civil law does not cover same-sex couples and places importance on natural reproduction. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi told reporters after the ruling Friday that the government will monitor pending lawsuits and public opinion.
The plaintiffs and their lawyers say the overwhelming winning record of 9-1 in the courts is already enough and the government should quickly take action.
More than 30 plaintiffs have joined the lawsuits on marriage equality filed in five regions across Japan since 2019. They argue that civil law provisions barring same-sex marriage violate the Constitutional right to equality and freedom of marriage.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Voice of America
13-03-2025
- Voice of America
Foreign bloggers help China spread propaganda, analysis finds
Foreign bloggers who praise China rapidly gain popularity and millions of followers on Chinese social media platforms. VOA examined the facts and spoke with experts to shed light on the government's efforts behind the phenomenon. "It is a long-standing tradition of the Chinese Communist Party to use foreigners to voice its propaganda for added credibility," said Mareike Ohlberg, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund. Foreign influencers cooperate with the Chinese government, the media and third parties to create and boost content that supports government narratives, Ohlberg said. One of the most common topics that foreign influencers focus on is whitewashing human rights abuses in Xinjiang. The U.N. Human Rights Office and groups like Amnesty International estimate that more than 1 million people – mostly Uyghurs – have been confined in internment camps in Xinjiang. One of the most recent and maybe most popular foreign characters in China is a French national, Marcus Detrez, who became a media sensation in 2024. Japanese occupation photos Last year, Detrez posted a series of historic photographs on the Chinese social media platform Douyin that depicted life under the Japanese occupation in the early 20th century. He claimed the images were taken by his grandfather and said he wanted to donate them to China. Detrez enjoyed a year of celebrity treatment from Chinese authorities, including touring across China, while state media outlets profiled him as a hero. In February, however, historians exposed Detrez as a fraud. The photographs he claimed were unique family heirlooms turned out to be publicly available online in various museums around the world. But the thread of glorified foreign bloggers started much earlier. One of the pioneers on Chinese social media is a Russian internet celebrity, Vladislav Kokolevskiy, known in China as Fulafu. He amassed 12.89 million followers on Douyin, where he posts short video clips praising life in China. In November 2023, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute wrote that in China, Fulafu has 'become a household name through his ostentatious displays of affection for China,' identifying him as a Chinese government propagandist. Kokolevskiy does not make commercial ad disclaimers. However, CMGM, an outlet covering China news, reported in January 2021 that he received advertisement contracts within 15 days for NetEase's "Heavenly Oracle" mobile game and online retailers Pinduoduo and Tmall. The companies paid about $11,000 for each ad, bringing Fulafu's advertising revenue up to about $33,000 for January 2021 alone, according to the report. Like Fulafu, dozens of foreigners grew to stardom on the Chinese internet during the last decade, Ohlberg said. Among them is Gerald Kowal, known also as Jerry Guo, an American who has risen to popularity in China after an interview with state-owned CCTV in 2020. At the time, Kowal had been posting series of short videos critical of New York City authorities' handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. He also repeated debunked conspiracy theories, claiming, for example, that the U.S. military brought the coronavirus to China. CCTV broadcasted his interview from New York live. The China Newsweek magazine profiled Kowal in May 2020 as 'one of the most influential internet celebrities,' calling him a 'war correspondent' for his videos from pandemic-stricken New York. Third-party promoters The success of a large number of foreign influencers is closely tied to multichannel networks or MCNs, which are third-party organizations that promote the growth of certain content creators, operating behind the scenes. One of the MCN industry leaders is YChina, founded in 2016 by Israeli businessman Amir Gal-Or and his Chinese partner and former classmate, Fang Yedun, as part of Gal-Or's 'Crooked Nuts Research Institute,' which focuses on documenting the lives of foreigners in China. YChina started with the cross-platform sharing of short video interviews with Western expats living in China. It initially focused on cultural topics and soon accumulated more than 100 million followers among its internet influencers from over 30 countries, including Israel, the United States, Australia, Spain, Argentina, Japan and Thailand. Chinese democracy activists in exile have accused YChina of supporting Chinese government propaganda about Xinjiang and Hong Kong. In July 2024, the China Public Diplomacy Association, which is under the supervision of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, gathered more than 30 foreign influencers from 25 countries to participate in a training camp and visit various cities in China. The bloggers were asked to record their experiences on video and share them online. China's state-controlled media outlets boost such bloggers, presenting them to domestic audiences within the narrative of a prosperous nation under the Communist Party. For example, the Xinhua News Agency's series in 2024 on foreign internet celebrities in China showed videos of influencers from all over the world walking the streets of China's major cities praising their 'cleanest streets in the world" and "efficient garbage disposal system." In using these foreign bloggers, the Chinese Communist Party wants to show that life in China is not what rights groups and China's critics abroad say it is. The government exploits the idea that unless 'you come and see, you have no right to judge,' the German Marshall Fund's Ohlberg said. The core of this idea is 'very hypocritical,' Ohlberg added, because 'the Communist Party allows these people to go only where it wants them to go and see only what it wants them to see. And if you're critical, you certainly won't get the opportunity to go on a field trip.'
Voice of America
13-03-2025
- Voice of America
Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene in bid to curb birthright citizenship
Donald Trump took the fight over his attempt to restrict automatic U.S. birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court on Thursday as the Republican president's administration asked the justices to narrow a judicial block imposed on this key element of his hardline approach toward immigration. The Justice Department made the request challenging the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued against Trump's order by federal courts in Washington state, Massachusetts and Maryland. The administration said the injunctions should be scaled back from applying universally and limited to just the plaintiffs that brought the cases and are "actually within the courts' power." "Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration," the Justice Department said in the filing. "This court should declare that enough is enough before district courts' burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched." Trump's order, signed on his first day back in office on Jan. 20, directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was intended to apply starting Feb. 19 but has been blocked nationwide by multiple federal judges. Trump's action has drawn a series of lawsuits from plaintiffs, including 22 Democratic state attorneys general, immigrant rights advocates and expectant mothers. They argue among other things that Trump's order violates a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Its request to the justices marks its latest trip to the top U.S. judicial body to defend Trump's actions. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. Trump's push to restrict birthright citizenship is part of a broader immigration and border crackdown that includes tasking the U.S. military with aiding border security and issuing a broad ban on asylum. The judges who ruled against Trump's order faulted it as conflicting with the Constitution. An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to noncitizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's Justice Department has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States."
Voice of America
10-03-2025
- Voice of America
Supreme Court will take up state bans on conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children, in Colorado case
The Supreme Court agreed Monday in a case from Colorado to decide whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children. The conservative-led court is taking up the case amid actions by President Donald Trump targeting transgender people, including a ban on military service and an end to federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The justices also have heard arguments in a Tennessee case over whether state bans on treating transgender minors violate the Constitution. But they have yet to issue a decision. Colorado is among roughly half the states that prohibit the practice of trying to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling. The issue is whether the law violates the speech rights of counselors. Defenders of such laws argue that they regulate the conduct of professionals who are licensed by the state. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the state law. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has struck down local bans in Florida. In 2023, the court had turned away a similar challenge, despite a split among federal appeals courts that had weighed state bans and come to differing decisions. At the time, three justices, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, said they would have taken on the issue. It takes four justices to grant review. The nine-member court does not typically reveal how justices vote at this stage of a case so it's unclear who might have provided the fourth vote. The case will be argued in the court's new term, which begins in October. The appeal on behalf of Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado Springs, was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years in cases involving high-profile social issues. One of those cases was a 5-4 decision in 2018 in which the justices ruled that California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles' lawyers leaned heavily on that decision in asking the court to take up her case. They wrote that Chiles doesn't "seek to 'cure' clients of same-sex attractions or to 'change' clients' sexual orientation." In arguing for the court to reject the appeal, lawyers for Colorado wrote that lawmakers acted to regulate professional conduct, "based on overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child's sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective."
