A court ruling in which a same-sex couple in their 30s living in Aichi Prefecture seeking compensation from the government will be handed down by the Nagoya District Court on the 30th, arguing that the fact that same-sex marriage is not recognized violates the Constitution. In similar lawsuits, the court's judgment on whether it violates the Constitution is divided and the judgment is noted.
A couple in their 30s living in Aichi Prefecture have filed a lawsuit in the Nagoya District Court seeking compensation from the government, arguing that provisions such as the Civil Code that do not allow same-sex marriage violate the Constitution, which stipulates freedom of marriage and equality before the law.
In response, the government has asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed, saying, "Same-sex marriage is not envisaged in the Constitution."
Ahead of the ruling, one of the plaintiffs said, "No matter what the verdict is, I think it is important to get as many people as possible to take an interest in it, and I hope that the result will be a bright future for the young generation and children who belong to LGBT and various minorities and are worried."
Five similar lawsuits have been filed nationwide, and this is the fourth ruling.
In the first case, the Sapporo District Court ruled that it violated the Constitution, which stipulates equality before the law, and in the second case, the Osaka District Court ruled that it did not violate the Constitution. Furthermore, the judgment of the third case was divided, the Tokyo District Court, which pointed out that although it does not violate the Constitution, "it violates the Constitution, which stipulates the dignity of the individual and the essential equality of the sexes."
The verdict is scheduled to be handed down at 5 p.m. on the 4th.
Court decision focuses
The case is being held in the form of a claim for damages, but the main focus is on whether the court will rule that the state in which same-sex couples cannot legally marry is unconstitutional.
Article 24 of the Constitution
Article 24 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom to marry, stipulates that "marriage shall be based solely on the consent of both sexes."
The plaintiffs argue that "the consent of both sexes is not intended to be limited to men and women, but is also guaranteed to same-sex couples."
In response, the government argues that "'both sexes' clearly refers to a man and a woman in the wording, and does not assume same-sex marriage."
Article 14 of the Constitution
In addition, regarding Article 14 of the Constitution, which stipulates equality before the law, the plaintiffs claim that "marriage is based on an intimate relationship, but it is discrimination based on sexual orientation that a person who likes the opposite sex can marry and a person who likes the same sex cannot marry."
On the other hand, the government argues that "the absence of a law recognizing same-sex marriage does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution because the Constitution presupposes heterosexual marriage and does not envisage the establishment of same-sex marriage."
Legislative inaction
The plaintiffs are seeking compensation from the state, claiming that "it is illegal for the Diet to leave the current law for a long time without justifiable reason, even though it is clear that the current law violates the Constitution," but the government counters that it "does not violate the Constitution and is not illegal."
The district court's decisions so far have been:
Three of the five similar lawsuits filed across the country have all rejected lawsuits seeking compensation, but the judgment on whether it violates the Constitution is divided.
The first case, the Sapporo District Court, ruled in March that Article 5 of the Constitution stipulates marriage between opposite-sex people, but pointed out that "the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is only a difference in sexual orientation that cannot be chosen by will, while homosexual people cannot even receive part of the legal benefits of marriage, which is discriminatory treatment that lacks rational grounds." It ruled that not recognizing same-sex marriage violated Article 3 of the Constitution, which stipulates equality before the law.
The second Osaka District Court ruled the opposite in June last year.
"Article 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates the freedom of marriage, assumes marriage between a man and a woman," and also judges Article 3 of the Constitution to be constitutional because "the difference in benefits available to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples is being alleviated under the current system."
However, Osaka's ruling also pointed out that "the Constitution should not be interpreted as prohibiting same-sex marriage or similar systems, but should be democratically decided based on national traditions, national sentiment, marital and parent-child relationships in each era, etc.," and noted that depending on changes in social conditions, it may be a violation of the Constitution if legislative measures are not taken to recognize same-sex marriage.
Furthermore, in November last year, the Tokyo District Court ruled that it did not violate the Constitution, but pointed out that "the absence of a legal system for becoming a family with a same-sex partner violates the Constitution, which stipulates the dignity of the individual and the essential equality of both sexes."
Plaintiff's couple interviewed by NHK
A couple in their 30s, Shoichi Takami (pseudonym) and Toshimasa Ohno (pseudonym), who live in Aichi Prefecture and are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, spoke to NHK before the verdict.
Six years ago, Ohno proposed to Takami, and they have been living together since then, but Takami said, "I am worried about my life because I don't even have a choice, such as not being able to receive the spousal deduction and not being allowed to join as a spouse by some insurance companies."
He says that what worries him the most is that if one of them is injured or becomes ill, he or she may not be allowed to visit or decide on a treatment plan because he or she is not legally a relative.
In the past, when Takami used the emergency room, Ohno told the hospital that he was a "roommate" and asked for understanding and was allowed to accompany him, but Ohno recalled, "I felt very real that there were times when I went to a hospital I didn't know and couldn't be present."
The two have created a "notarized deed" to prove that they are in a relationship, but they also feel that it is not realistic to come out and explain the relationship in a pressing situation.
There were times when I was hurt by online dissent and wanted to stop the trial, but it was Takami's mother and aunt who encouraged me.
The mother recalled, "I knew from around the time I graduated from junior high school that my son liked that kind of person, but as a parent, I didn't think anything of it because it didn't change him in any way."
Also, my aunt, who took good care of me from a young age, stood on the witness stand at the trial. My aunt said, "I think it's very good to find a partner that you like and trust, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman, and I think it's unreasonable that you can't even register your marriage even though you work hard, pay taxes, and live the same way."
Ahead of the verdict, Ms. Ohno said, "There are still many children younger than us who belong to LGBT and various minorities and are worried, and I hope that we can do our best now so that their anxiety will disappear and that a bright future awaits them."