95

The ruling bucks a trend set by courts around Japan that had raised hopes for marriage equality.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 48 points 2 months ago

The world is regressing so hard

[-] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 months ago

The parts where we let the fascists live, yeah

[-] watson@lemmy.world 48 points 2 months ago

Come on Japan, what the fuck

[-] KelvarCherry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Japan's opposition to gay marriage is astounding. They specifically prevent transgender married people from changing their gender marker, specifically to prevent approved hetero marriages "turning" gay. This law was written in 20 (and originally also required trans folk to be sterilized for reasons I shudder to imagine).

[-] chosensilence@pawb.social 31 points 2 months ago

laws are a human made concept and don’t mean anything if you simply ignore them. i hope Japan can move beyond this somehow in the future.

[-] rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

I agree, but so is marriage. If you want to be legally married, you have to participate in the reality of the law rather than simply ignoring it which is why this is such a problem.

I'm just shocked that there are still governments doing this sort of bigoted shit, it's so disheartening!

[-] chosensilence@pawb.social 6 points 2 months ago

oh definitley, i meant it as a reminder that we are the ones who make these decisions even if it feels out of reach. those who are allies in Japan shouldn’t feel defeated by this. keep the fight moving.

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Article 13. All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs.

Is there fine print thay says unless youre gay?

[-] Manfredolin@feddit.org 12 points 2 months ago

A imaginative Lawyer can probably argue that "to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare" is saying that

[-] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago
[-] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago

It's implied.

[-] CXORA@aussie.zone 8 points 2 months ago

Looks like its being kicked up to the supreme court now. Good news is every other high court thst ruled on it was pro same sex marriage. Hopefully the supreme court follows the majority opinion there.

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

We're gonna need a bigger doohickey

this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
95 points (100.0% liked)

LGBTQ+

4546 readers
184 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS