In a significant legal setback for marriage equality advocates, Tokyo’s High Court declared Japan’s prohibition of same-sex unions constitutional on Friday, marking the first defeat at this judicial level among six parallel cases challenging the nation’s marital laws.
The ruling overturned a previous lower court decision from 2023 and established that Japan’s legal framework rationally defines family as a unit comprising heterosexual couples and their children. Presiding Judge Ayumi Higashi asserted that excluding same-sex partnerships from marital recognition remains legally valid under this interpretation. The court additionally rejected damage claims of 1 million yen (approximately $6,400) per plaintiff sought by eight LGBTQ+ individuals demanding equal marriage rights.
This decision represents only the second judicial finding supporting the constitutionality of Japan’s current policy since the 2022 Osaka District Court ruling. With all six high court cases now concluded, attention turns to the Supreme Court, which is anticipated to consolidate appeals and deliver a definitive verdict potentially as early as next year.
Plaintiffs expressed profound disappointment outside the courthouse. ‘Rather than sorrow, I’m outraged and appalled by the decision,’ stated Hiromi Hatogai, one of the claimants. Another participant, Rie Fukuda, emphasized their determination: ‘We only want to be able to marry and be happy, just like anyone else. I believe society is changing. We won’t give up.’
Despite this judicial setback, recent years have witnessed rapidly growing public support for marriage equality and increasing backing from Japan’s business community. The nation remains the sole G7 country that neither recognizes same-sex marriage nor provides legally binding protections for LGBTQ+ couples, with Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s conservative Liberal Democratic Party maintaining strong opposition to marital rights expansion.
More than 30 plaintiffs have participated in marriage equality lawsuits filed across Japan since 2019, arguing that current civil law provisions violate constitutional guarantees of equality and marriage freedom. The government maintains that civil marriage fundamentally concerns heterosexual unions and places importance on natural reproduction.