Same-Sex Marriage Not Recognized: Ruling Reasonable, in Line with Constitutional Provision

Editorial

13:59 JST, November 29, 2025

At the time the Constitution was established, same-sex marriage was not envisaged at all as a form of marriage. Based on this fact, the latest court ruling is an appropriate one that naturally interprets the Constitution’s provision.

In a lawsuit in which a same-sex couple and others sought damages from the state, arguing that the legal system denying marriage between same-sex partners violates the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of marriage and equality under the law, the Tokyo High Court ruled that “marriage does not apply to same-sex couples” and deemed the legal system “constitutional.”

Six similar lawsuits have been filed to date. At the district court level, judgments were divided. The legal system was ruled as “constitutional” in one case, “unconstitutional” in two cases and “in a state of unconstitutionality” in three cases. In high courts, it was ruled as “unconstitutional” in five cases, but the latest is the first time a high court has ruled it to be “constitutional.”

Article 24 of the Constitution stipulates, “Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes.” The high court ruling noted that this provision was established to “hold [marriage] as a historical and traditional relationship between opposite sexes who sincerely commit to a life together.”

The high court went on to say, “It cannot be said that same-sex couples are guaranteed the freedom of marriage under the Constitution.”

Given that the Constitution does not envisage same-sex marriage, it is only natural that the Civil Code and other laws lack provisions recognizing it.

Nevertheless, some of the court rulings that concluded current laws are “unconstitutional” or “in a state of unconstitutionality” must be seen as having piled on unreasonable constitutional interpretations. In this regard, the high court’s latest ruling represents an extremely natural line of reasoning and is convincing.

The ruling also said, “It is difficult to maintain a stable society without reproduction by men and women.” The viewpoint that marriage creates families and connects society to the next generation is an important one.

However, family structures are diversifying. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a unified ruling of the six cases as early as next year. Nonetheless, these are not legal disputes over whether the legal system is “constitutional” or “unconstitutional.” Rather, it is a fundamental issue that should be thoroughly debated in the Diet.

Sexual orientation cannot be changed by an individual’s will. It is unacceptable for human rights to be violated or for discrimination to occur simply because someone is in a same-sex relationship.

An increasing number of local governments are introducing partnership programs that publicly recognize same-sex couples.

Under these systems, local governments issue certificates to recognize the relationships of same-sex couples as equivalent to those of married couples, enabling partners to do such things as give consent for surgeries. An increasing number of companies are also providing welfare benefits and services to same-sex couples as de facto spouses.

Even if it is not legally recognized as a “marriage,” same-sex couples are free to live together in a de facto marriage-like arrangement. Enhancing social support for such arrangements is also important.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Nov. 29, 2025)