this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
315 points (97.6% liked)

World News

38956 readers
1919 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 101 points 7 months ago

Polls show up to 70% of the population supports same-sex unions.

Good to see most Japanese people being on the right side of history.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, but the marriage unions are still not legally recognized? So close!

[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yeah this title is super confusing.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I suspect that the courts decided that the legislature has to create a mechanism to recognize but can no longer block marriages.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

IIRC that's correct. Their paperwork is only strictly defining a man and woman, not just "two persons" or something like that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Japanese law is complicated, unsurprisingly. Getting this done in the US, for example, only had to deal with 242 or so years of legal precedence. Japan has been around for a lot longer.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

US Common Law directly traces its lineage to English Common Law, which in turn has its roots in Anglo-Saxon law. Courts still occasionally cite centuries old English legal cases.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

That’s mostly for inspiration. English Common Law, the Magna Carta, etc., have no legal bearing in US courts.

Japanese courts have a millennium of history of legal precedent and jurisprudence to consider in their decision, and nothing from the west has anything to do with it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Justice Alito cited the 13th century English legal treatise De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae when he allowed states to ban abortion so I guess it’s pretty inspiring.

Source

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

He was inspired by the fact he couldn’t cite any actual United States legal precedent.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Lol so true. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s an almost 800 year old citation being used by the majority opinion of the highest court in the land.

Talk about precedent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Troubling, isn’t it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Eh the Japanese pretty much imported the BGB wholesale, a metric fuckton of countries have civil and criminal codes that root in either the French or German traditions. Their system is also generally firmly rooted in civil law, that is, precedent is non-binding.

This is mostly a case of politicians not wanting to stir controversy, I think: While most Japanese would be in favour it's a change and on top of that a change that would really piss off a minority so in the interest of conflict averseness the can is getting kicked down the road.