Japan high court rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional (english.kyodonews.net)
from Stamau123@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 15 Mar 2024 01:12
https://lemmy.world/post/13133109

A Japanese high court ruled Thursday the country’s lack of legal recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, in a move likely to further mount pressure on the government to do more to protect sexual minorities.

The Sapporo High Court upheld the lower court’s landmark verdict in 2021 that said non-recognition of same-sex marriage violates the right to equality protected under the Constitution but rejected a total of 6 million yen ($40,600) in damages sought by three same-sex couples in Hokkaido against the state for emotional distress.

The plaintiffs said they will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

#world

threaded - newest

Toes@ani.social on 15 Mar 2024 02:08 next collapse

Oh that’s wonderful news. This is cause for serious celebration, thank you for sharing this.

[deleted] on 15 Mar 2024 02:10 next collapse
.
jordanlund@lemmy.world on 15 Mar 2024 04:57 collapse

Removed, racism. Rule 4.

“Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.”

Zagorath@aussie.zone on 15 Mar 2024 03:14 next collapse

The plaintiffs said they will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Wait, they can appeal a decision which they won

kautau@lemmy.world on 15 Mar 2024 03:35 next collapse

My guess is it means because the high court voted it as unconstitutional, they are raising the issue to Japan’s Supreme Court to make it a national ruling

NateNate60@lemmy.world on 15 Mar 2024 07:15 collapse

Japan isn’t a federation, there is no “federal”

kautau@lemmy.world on 15 Mar 2024 07:17 collapse

True, my word of choice should have been national, thanks for pointing that out, I’ll edit my comment

Echinoderm@aussie.zone on 15 Mar 2024 03:56 collapse

The article has a paragraph later on that says:

In rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims for damages, the court said, “It cannot be said that discussions at the Diet…regarding provisions not allowing same-sex marriage are clearly in violation of the Constitution.”

I suspect the plaintiffs are only appealing that aspect of the judgment.

CluckN@lemmy.world on 15 Mar 2024 12:44 collapse

I was hoping the court would remain sober when making the decision.