On the 30th, the Tokyo District Court will hand down a ruling in which same-sex couples living in Tokyo demanded compensation from the government, saying that it violates the constitution that same-sex marriage is not permitted.
Similar class action lawsuits have been filed in five locations across the country, but the judgment of whether or not it violates the constitution is divided, and the Tokyo District Court's ruling is drawing attention.
Eight people, including a same-sex couple living in Tokyo, are seeking compensation from the government, saying that the civil code and other provisions that do not allow same-sex marriage violate the constitution that stipulates freedom of marriage and equality under the law.
In response, the government argues that same-sex marriage is not envisioned in the constitution.
Similar class action lawsuits have been filed in Sapporo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Fukuoka, and the Sapporo District Court, which was the first to make a judgment, rejected the lawsuit seeking compensation in March last year, but said, ``Homosexual people are legally prohibited by marriage. You can't even receive a part of the benefits.It's a discriminatory treatment that lacks rational grounds."
On the other hand, in June, the Osaka District Court handed down a ruling not violating the Constitution, stating that ``the difference in the benefits that same-sex couples and heterosexual couples can receive is being eased under the current system.'' is divided.
The judgment is scheduled to be handed down at 2:00 pm on the 30th, and attention will be paid to what kind of constitutional judgment the Tokyo District Court, which will be the third case, will show.
Plaintiff "I want the judgment to give hope"
Those who filed the lawsuit are hoping for a ruling that will trigger the recognition of same-sex marriage in Japan.
The plaintiffs in the Tokyo trial, Yoko Ogawa, 59, and Senzoku Oe, 62, have been living together as partners for nearly 30 years.
They once submitted a marriage registration to the ward office, but it was rejected because they were of the same sex.
Mr. Oe said, "Beside me, a couple of men and women were happy to have their marriage registrations submitted and accepted. I said.
Two people living in Nakano Ward are using the partnership system introduced by the ward four years ago.
A partnership system is a public certification of a same-sex couple's relationship within a municipality, but it does not have the legal effect of marriage.
In many respects, such as taxes and social security, they are treated differently than married couples.
Ms. Ogawa said, "As things stand now, no matter how long we live together, we're just strangers to each other, so I'm worried about what our lives will be like in the future."
Three years ago, I joined a lawsuit against the government as a plaintiff in hopes of changing this situation.
Young people can have hopes for the future because they often talk to junior high and high school students about their worries while engaging in activities such as consulting with sexual minorities and sharing their experiences. I look forward to such a decision.
Mr. Oe said, "I want the ruling to give hope that even same-sex couples can get married."
the point of contention in court
Class action lawsuits over same-sex marriage have been filed in five locations across the country, in addition to Tokyo, in Sapporo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Fukuoka.
It's a matter of court.
Article 24 of the Constitution
Article 24 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of marriage.
Regarding the stipulation that ``marriage is based only on the consent of both sexes,'' the plaintiff argued that ``the ``consensus of the sexes'' is not limited to men and women, but is also guaranteed to same-sex couples. I'm here.
On the other hand, the government insists that ``since it is defined as ``both sex'', it does not assume same-sex marriage.
Article 14 of the Constitution
Regarding Article 14 of the Constitution, which stipulates equality under the law, the plaintiff said, ``It is irrational discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender that people who like the opposite sex can get married, but people who like the same sex can't. '' he claimed.
On the other hand, the government argues that ``the constitution presupposes heterosexual marriage, and refusing same-sex marriage is a rational distinction and not discrimination.''
parliamentary inaction
Furthermore, the plaintiff claims that ``it is illegal for the Diet to neglect a law that violates the constitution, and the government is responsible for compensation.'' ” he argues.
Judgment of Sapporo and Osaka
In March last year, the Sapporo District Court said that Article 24 of the Constitution stipulated marriage between heterosexuals, while ``The difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is only the difference in sexual orientation that cannot be selected by will, but homosexuality is the only difference. "People are not even entitled to some of the legal benefits of marriage. It's a discriminatory treatment that lacks rational grounds," he said.
For the first time, the ban on same-sex marriage violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which stipulates equality under the law.
However, the claim for compensation was dismissed.
After that, the Osaka District Court in June gave the opposite decision.
``Article 24 of the Constitution, which stipulates the freedom to marry, assumes marriage between a man and a woman. It is being relaxed by "," and judges that it is constitutional.
However, the Osaka ruling also said, ``The constitution should not be interpreted as prohibiting same-sex marriage or similar systems. It should be," he said, noting that depending on changes in social conditions, it could be a violation of the Constitution unless legislative measures are taken to allow same-sex marriage.