Tokyo Court Upholds Japan’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage but Calls for Legislative Action

---

Tokyo High Court Delivers Landmark Ruling

Tokyo, Japan – The Tokyo High Court on Friday ruled that Japan’s ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the country’s Constitution, marking a decisive moment in a nationwide legal battle over marriage equality. The court, led by Judge Ayumi Higashi, acknowledged the rights and dignity of same-sex couples but concluded that any change to the definition of marriage must come from the legislature, not the judiciary.

The verdict, delivered in a packed courtroom, prompted a mixture of disappointment and renewed resolve from plaintiffs and supporters who have fought for years to secure legal recognition for same-sex unions. The case is the last of six high-profile lawsuits filed between 2019 and 2021 across Japan, aiming to challenge the constitutionality of the existing Civil Code and Marriage Law, which limit marriage to heterosexual couples.

Mixed Legal Landscape Across Japan

The Tokyo ruling stands in contrast to several previous judgments from district and high courts in other regions. Courts in Sapporo, Nagoya, and Fukuoka have each described the current legal framework as “in a state of violation” of constitutional principles guaranteeing equality, though they stopped short of ordering compensation or legal reforms. Meanwhile, others, such as the Osaka and Tokyo district courts, found no constitutional conflict.

Judge Higashi’s decision highlighted that Article 24 of Japan’s Constitution defines marriage as being based on “the mutual consent of both sexes,” a phrase which has traditionally been interpreted as restricting the institution to male-female unions. However, the court urged the National Diet—the country’s parliament—to actively engage in debate, noting that societal attitudes toward sexuality and family structure are changing rapidly.

The ruling effectively closes the current round of appellate-level litigation, setting the stage for Japan’s Supreme Court to take up the issue. Legal analysts expect the high court’s eventual decision to have sweeping implications for both the legal system and broader social policy.

Plaintiffs React with Disappointment and Resolve

Outside the Tokyo courthouse, emotions ran high. Plaintiffs and supporters held rainbow flags and signs reading “Love is Love” as they described their disappointment over the outcome. Shino Kawachi, one of the plaintiffs, called the ruling “difficult to comprehend” and expressed despair about what she saw as the court’s failure to recognize the lived realities of same-sex couples. “What is justice?” she asked. “Was the court even watching us? Were they considering the next generation?”

Her partner, Hiromi Hatogai, expressed frustration at the judiciary’s interpretation but affirmed that the couple would continue to fight. “This is not the end,” she said. “We have to keep moving forward, for ourselves and those who come after us.”

Human Rights Groups Condemn Ruling

The decision drew immediate condemnation from domestic and international human rights organizations. Amnesty International called the verdict a “damaging step backwards” for marriage equality, warning that Japan’s failure to provide legal recognition for same-sex couples perpetuates systemic discrimination. Boram Jang, Amnesty’s East Asia researcher, urged the Japanese government to “proactively enact legislation that ensures equal marriage rights and protections for all people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.”

Other advocacy groups echoed these concerns, arguing that Japan’s international standing as a democratic member of the G7 contrasts sharply with its slow movement on LGBTQ+ rights. “This ruling highlights the urgent need for political action,” said Kanae Doi, director of Human Rights Watch Japan. “Legal recognition of same-sex marriage is not just a symbolic issue—it affects people’s rights to family, inheritance, medical decision-making, and social security.”

Japan’s Position Compared to Global Trends

Japan’s ruling places it in stark contrast with other advanced economies. Among G7 nations—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States—Japan remains the only country that has not legalized same-sex marriage or introduced equivalent legal protections.

In Asia, progress has been uneven but measurable. Taiwan became the first jurisdiction in the region to legalize same-sex marriage in 2019 following a landmark constitutional ruling. Thailand recently passed legislation recognizing same-sex marriage, set to take effect in 2025, while Nepal’s Supreme Court instructed local authorities to register same-sex marriages earlier this year. These regional developments have increased international pressure on Japan to reconsider its position.

Social surveys in Japan suggest growing support for marriage equality. Polling by national broadcasters and newspapers shows that more than 70 percent of respondents under 40 years old favor legal recognition of same-sex unions. Businesses, particularly multinational corporations with operations in Japan, have also voiced support, citing diversity and inclusion as key principles in attracting global talent.

Historical Context of Marriage Laws in Japan

Japan’s modern Marriage Law was established in 1947 under the postwar Constitution. Article 24 enshrined equality between men and women in family matters—a groundbreaking provision at the time. However, legal scholars note that the article’s gendered language reflected the social norms of the mid-20th century, when same-sex relationships were largely invisible in public discourse.

Efforts to reinterpret or revise this framework have gained momentum over the past two decades as attitudes toward LGBTQ+ identity have liberalized. Local governments, including Tokyo Prefecture and over 300 municipalities nationwide, have introduced partnership certificate systems since 2015. While these systems provide limited recognition for same-sex couples, they do not carry the full legal rights of marriage, such as joint adoption, inheritance, or spousal tax benefits.

The absence of national legislation leaves many couples without legal recourse in critical situations—such as hospital visitation, disaster relief, or pension entitlements. Advocacy groups argue that this legal gap imposes tangible hardships and reinforces social stigma.

Economic Implications of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

Beyond its social and human rights implications, the debate over same-sex marriage has significant economic dimensions. Economists note that expanding marriage rights could generate measurable fiscal and consumer benefits. A 2019 study by a leading Tokyo think tank estimated that legalization could boost Japan’s economy by more than 1.5 trillion yen through wedding-related industries, tourism, and increased household spending.

Moreover, multinational corporations have linked inclusive family policies to employee retention and productivity, suggesting that marriage equality could enhance Japan’s competitiveness in the global economy. Japan’s aging population and shrinking workforce have led some policymakers to emphasize diversity and inclusion as strategies to stimulate growth and social renewal.

Despite these potential gains, political momentum for reform has been slow. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) remains divided on the issue, with some conservative members viewing marriage reform as incompatible with “traditional family values.” Opposition parties, including the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, have introduced bills to legalize same-sex marriage, but none have advanced beyond committee discussions.

Parliamentary Responsibility and Public Expectation

The Tokyo High Court’s call for parliamentary debate underscores the growing recognition that the issue cannot remain confined to the courtroom. Legal experts describe the verdict as a statement that constitutional reform is possible but must be grounded in democratic process. Judge Higashi’s remarks that “the legislature must respond” were interpreted by many observers as a direct challenge to lawmakers to confront public sentiment and evolving social norms.

Public opinion appears increasingly supportive of action. Recent petitions to the Diet have gathered tens of thousands of signatures calling for marriage equality. Activists argue that the combination of judicial recognition of discrimination and strong public backing leaves the government little justification for inaction.

Looking Ahead: Supreme Court and Policy Prospects

The case now moves toward Japan’s Supreme Court, where a final decision could establish a binding precedent. Legal scholars expect the high court to weigh the intent of Article 24 against contemporary interpretations of equality under Article 14, which guarantees equal protection under the law. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would likely compel lawmakers to enact legislation within a specified period, while an affirmation of the Tokyo decision would entrench the current status quo.

For same-sex couples like Kawachi and Hatogai, the prospect of a prolonged legal battle poses emotional and financial strains but also renewed determination. “Each loss brings us closer to change,” Kawachi said. “The truth is on our side, and the tide of history is moving forward.”

A Nation at a Crossroads

Japan now stands at a crossroads between its conservative legal foundations and an evolving social reality. As regional neighbors embrace reform, pressure on Tokyo to modernize its marriage laws continues to grow—from domestic advocates, international allies, and a younger generation demanding fairness and inclusion.

While the Tokyo High Court’s decision upholds the constitutionality of Japan’s current laws, its message to lawmakers is clear: the time for parliamentary action has arrived. The coming months will reveal whether Japan’s political establishment is prepared to align its laws with the principles of equality and human dignity that have become hallmarks of its global peers.

For now, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming deliberation looms as the next decisive chapter in Japan’s long struggle for marriage equality—a battle not only for legal recognition but for the country’s evolving sense of justice and identity in the twenty-first century.