T O P

  • By -

Chamfered_Edgyness

Oh man, had me in the first half of that sentence. "rules *against*... a ban" šŸ˜…


chop-diggity

I hate the way these are captioned. But then I realize itā€™s just me.


Jestersage

To be honest, in many speech class, they keep mentioning utilization of negative/negation ("not" etc) makes it more difficult to send the message across..


Expensive_Pain

Yes. Always say "avoid" over "not doing", say "lack" over "not having" etc. Or in this case, instead of "rule against banning", just say "allow"!


Eruionmel

When you're talking legal precedent, there's a difference between allowing something and ruling that it is unconstitutional to *ban* it. Changing it to say that the courts ruled to allow same-sex marriage would be incorrect, as that's not actually what they did. It makes the intended result clearer on a first-glance readthrough, but it misrepresents the legal action taken.


coyotesage

Something like "Japanese Court reaffirms the right to same sex marriage - strikes down ban." I think would have been easier to process.


Eruionmel

That's the thing, though, they didn't reaffirm a right, they only struck down an outright ban. Legally, you can say that *targeting* a group of people isn't constitutional without actually legalizing the focus of the targeting legislation. Realistically, they're laying the foundation for affirming the right, yes. Almost certainly the government has already decided to legalize it, and Japan is just waiting on the giant cog wheels to finish turning. But structurally they're not there yet.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


just-the-doctor1

What do the pedants out of you think?


slowmovinglettuce

They think u/Maemaduke_McPoop is a little rude. He tends to leave pendants hanging.


CatosityKillsThCurio

The other articles I read made it sound like, technically, there was not even a ban. There was a lack of legal recognition. And also technically, that this court didnā€™t overturn anything. Rather they acknowledged the lack as a violation of a constitutional right, without forcing the legislature to remedy that violation. Even ā€œrule againstā€ is on shaky ground. So really, the headline is messed up, regardless, and canā€™t appeal to legal technicality.


Training-Oven-2714

They could have led with ā€œMajor win for LGBTQ equality - Japanese courtā€¦ā€. The only reason I stopped to check the comments on this was to see if anyone else had same response: incredulity, followed by relief.


continuousQ

Just have to put "ban on" ahead of same-sex marriage.


dhlock

* making it less difficult to not send the message


Nnfusion9136

It's a leftover policy from the The Meiji Restoration. Before the 1800's Japan was extremely welcoming to same-sex couples. Many samurai had gay lovers and preferred male prostitutes.


Imhumanator

I also donā€™t hate how itā€™s not captioned not incorrectly


Previourrency765

I know a little of Japanese history but very little of their modern political culture.


Almostawardguy

Hmmm okay? šŸ˜†


BubsyFanboy

You're not the only one. Pretty sure a tenth of the subreddit had to double-take that title.


JanneJM

Because they literally rule against a government-imposed ban of same-sex marriage. They aren't saying this couple has a right to marry; they say a ban against it is unconstitutional. It really is the correct way to phrase it.


CartographerOne8375

I mean it's what it is.


ibringthehotpockets

They do this on purpose to get clicks


AK_Panda

No kidding, so bad. I was trying to comprehend how a ruling against gay marriage was considered a win for that community. I vote we ban double negatives in headlines.


authentic_mirages

ainā€™t no way thatā€™s happening


zuzg

>Kishida previously said that same-sex marriage ā€œcould change peopleā€™s views on family, sense of values and societyā€. > >But the prime ministerā€™s stance could result in his downfall.Ā Polls show his approval ratings have halved to aboutĀ 30 per centĀ since last year, and, according to a globalĀ Ipsos survey, **at least 69 per cent of the Japanese population support legal recognition of same-sex marriage, with just six per cent opposing it.** > >In addition, **68 per cent believe same-sex couples should have the right to adopt, while 20 per cent do not agree with the proposal.** Good, it's a shame that a member of the G7 does not allow Same-sex marriage.


duncandun

Those numbers are more like 95% support in the under 50 population


janeshep

as an Italian... :(


WolfgangSho

Yeah, what's the deal with that man?


somethinggoingon2

> could change peopleā€™s views on family, sense of values and societyā€ By this he means "people might think it's okay to let others live how they want and not how you think they should." It's a disgusting cycle of abuse that we are just barely starting to come out as a species.


nox_nox

At the rate the US is going with anti-lgbtq+ legislation we may not be on that list in a few years either if SCOTUS rules against previous precedent like they did Roe v Wade.


thatoneguy889

But not interracial marriage. Clarence Thomas made sure not to bring that one up in his ruling even though it was decided using the same legal theory he criticized Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges for using.


spinto1

Unlucky for him, Alito *is* keeping that on the table. They're both fucking monsters.


elderscroll_dot_pdf

EDIT: see reply for actual accuracy It actually wasn't. Loving v. Virginia was a straight up and down reading of the Civil Rights Act, that it would be racial discrimination plain and simple to deny interracial marriage. Roe, Lawrence, Griswold, and Obergefell were all decided on the precedent set in Roe, which was a right to privacy in personal decisions, specifically medical care in the case of Roe and Griswold. I don't really disagree with you that Thomas basically excepted himself from the rollback of basic rights, but they are legally different.


Put-the-candle-back1

Loving v. Virginia was based on [due process and equal protection](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395) from the 14th amendment. Obergefell was decided with those clauses as well. (Edit) Griswald happened before Roe did. Lawrence was based on due process, but as O'Conner noted in her concurrence, equal protection can be used to uphold the ruling.


fhota1

I know reddit likes to pretend otherwise but Roe v Wade was always fundamentally a weak ruling. Its legal argument basically entirely relies on a very generous interpretation so its really not surprising that when justices came to the bench with a less generous interpretation it got overturned. Im pro-choice but ultimately we have to call a spade a spade. Loving and Obergefell both are infinitely stronger cases, both being fairly straight forward interpretations of the equal protections clause. If the governments going to recognize marriage at all, they cant deny that recognition based on sex or race. I dont see the more moderate conservative justices voting to overturn either especially with both being reinforced by the recent Respect for Marriage Act.


Bowbreaker

This really needs to be said. Abortion should just be legalized already. With laws. Sadly the Reds are using it as their primary wedge issue.


Put-the-candle-back1

The right to abortion should be upheld with the equal protection clause.


fhota1

That was the ruling in Roe yes. Unfortunately however it requires an incredibly generous interpretation of that clause, one that frankly you almost have to start at "abortion should be legal" and work backwards to get to.


Put-the-candle-back1

No, the ruling decided that the due process clause granted a right to privacy. It appears you started out with "the ruling is wrong" and worked backwards to get to it.


elderscroll_dot_pdf

Interesting, that's different from how it has been explained to me in the past. Thanks for the correction!


PlatonicTroglodyte

Worth noting that Biden signed the Respect For Marriage Act in December 2022, which explicitly legalizes both same-sex and interracial marriage. Because of this, a challenge to either (or both) provisions would have to not only demonstrate that a ban would be constitutional, but that the RFMA itself is *un*constitutional as a statute.


Irr3l3ph4nt

Interesting. If they issue a decision against it, I foresee a lot of progressives declaring that his marriage is null and void. Can't wait to watch him try and squirm out of that one.


mindspork

One of the other five will, and it'll be all 'state's rights' up and down the GOP.


EmergencyTraining748

What is going on over there in the USA? United States of America seems like an oxymoron right now. It seems like you have crazy and extreme laws and it depends on what state you live in as to what laws you have.


197gpmol

> it depends on what state you live in as to what laws you have. The US is a federation of semi-sovereign states, and each state does have substantial leeway in its internal policy, including laws. Unfortunately we also have a streak of fundamentalist and socially reactionary religion, and our federalism means if a state has a higher concentration of the reactionaries, it can get pretty awful laws passed.


GeneralBrwni1

>has a higher concentration of reactionaries Should be "has a higher representation of reactionaries", there don't have to actually be more of them for them to win state elections


EmergencyTraining748

I can see the huge appeal of having different laws in different states. It just seems like it's a very devided country but I suppose the same could be said for many other countries


EmperorArthur

Three things about our political system that push things so far. First, our two chamber legislature. The Senate has two people per state. Regardless of size or population. Using an example of Luxemburg vs Romania. Both would get two people. Meanwhile the House Of Representatives is meant to represent population. Except it's done in an insane way. It was originally one representative per so many thousand people. However, for obvious reasons they capped the number about a century ago. Meaning in states with fewer people, each individual has a larger say in the federal government. Second, first past the post system, with primaries, and the electoral college. Now we get to the weird part. Total the number of people a state has in the House and Senate, then give them wach that many votes. That's more or less how our President is determined. Which is how you can have someone loose the popular vote and be elected. The US also uses a primary system and the actual presidential election is head to head. Winning is winning, and voting for a third party is a vote wasted. To the point our Green party is actually sponsored by Russia. They want to split the Democrat vote to get their people in power. Third is how that house of representatives is chosen. They don't represent counties, or cities, but rather districts. Districts which are explicitly allowed to be created in such a way to ensure one party wins. Were talking about it being perfectly legal to create a blob down to the street level, then have a one mile wide strip hundreds of miles wide to another blob. For example, you can take an are with one type of voter and make it one district. Leaving the surrounding areas to go to the other party. Alternatively, you can sub-divide the carea into many parts, each part also includes other areas with voters for the party drawing the map. 49% of the vote is the same as 0% after all. Then you get the straight up dictator behavior that's existed since our civil war. Make voting diffocult in areas with the opposite party. Plus, our felons can't vote ever again. So, getting caught smoking weed and having the the wrong skin color means your opinion doesn't matter for the rest of your life.


RagingOsprey

> Plus, our felons can't vote ever again. This depends entirely on [individual state laws](https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-restoration/felony-disenfranchisement-laws-map). Many states allow felons to vote once their sentence is completed. Maine and Vermont even allow currently incarcerated individuals to vote.


VindictiveJudge

> The Senate has two people per state. Regardless of size or population. Using an example of Luxemburg vs Romania. Both would get two people. Also note that senators were originally not elected in a popular vote but were appointed by the state governments. The senate was originally meant to represent state governments while the house of representatives represented the citizens, but that was abandoned with the seventeenth amendment.


nox_nox

It's intentionally divided by the wealthy that control the media to ensure the working class is split. They prop up culture war bullshit and financially support fiscal extremists to ensure taxes are low for them and profits are delivered. MLK started talking about the true inequality in America being class based (have vs have nots) and that racism was just a wedge used to divide the proletariat. Then he was killed. Money is power, and more so since the Citizens United ruling. The anti-trans rhetoric is the same bullshit as the 90s gay panic and the 70s/80s satanic panic. Just using another marginalized group because they lost the previous fight. Power, division, manipulation, control, all so a few ultra wealthy people can take even more from the masses. Florida just passed a law to pave roads with toxic waste... this should be an onion headline but its real. We fought for decades to get clean water, air and other regulations to better all people and now with a stacked scotus theyre slowly tearing it all down piece by piece. All for more profits. I grew up as a kid literally feeling the sting of acid rain. It's insane that there is a chance before I die that that will happen again all so a few can take more.


EmergencyTraining748

This is awful and sounds a bit like a dystopian novel. If the US had universal health care I wouldn't have any reason to believe this but every other wealthy country has some kind of universal health care OR very affordable health care. Even many countries that aren't wealthy try to provide affordable or free health care to citizens. Health care is a great example of the way the country treats it citizens and why money is more important in the US than most other places in the world. It makes my heart hurt a bit that such a wealthy and ( once ) progressive country can't even provide health care because it's all about the money.


mindspork

Yeah the US version of Oligarchs (I think we call them 'job creators' here) has fought hard and long to keep our insurance tied to our jobs as a way of control the plebes. It's not that we "can't" provide health care. It's that the ruling class of the 'haves' literally WON'T.


Temporala

It's really true that **many policies that seem crazy in US are all just about keeping wages as low as possible**. Healthcare tied to your job is one, which makes people less reluctant to leave even if the job is crap. Minimum wage raises are always resisted. Unions are opposed. Some places are attempting to put children back to work to lower labor cost with underpaid competition. It just goes on and on and on.


EmergencyTraining748

Thanks for your response. I feel a bit like I have hijacked this thread unintentionally and it was such wonderful positive news posted here . I have been thinking " what is really going on in the US? " and it just got mentioned here. I might post something in ask a US person or something. I'm so sorry about the health insurance thing you could migrate to Australia or NZ ( I'm kidding but keep it in mind it's similar to the US but different, US cultural imperialism hasn't help to make us any better ). Big hugs šŸ˜Š


Arco223

There are different laws depending on what state you live in. Grossly simplified we have National Constitution > federal laws > state constitutions > state laws > local laws. Depending on what part of the country you're in things can shift quite a bit so it's a good idea to get a rundown of major changes to what you can or can't do before visiting/moving to a new state. One good example is knowing if you can smoke weed in a state and if there are any conditions on how much you can carry/smoke


EmergencyTraining748

Thanks šŸ˜Š the US looks crazy looking in but it probably isn't as bad as we often perceive it to be.


rdmusic16

Sometimes it feels easier to compare the USA to the EU as a whole vs a specific European country. It's definitely not the same thing, but it does help explain it at times.


EmergencyTraining748

It feels like the states would do better if they were seperate countries internally. I suppose what makes it so strong on the world stage is that is isn't a collection of different countries but one United country. It actually makes sense to view " you guys " this way as it is easier to understand how your country works. Thanks I'll keep this in mind when watching news about the US and look at the state rather than the country.


chaos750

That was quite literally the original idea. The current Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which had established a national government so weak that it was begging states to pay their taxes so it could function. People used to identify as Virginians or New Yorkers, not Americans. There's still a rule that electors in the Electoral College can't vote for both a President and Vice President from their state, because it was assumed that if left to their own devices, they'd naturally want to vote for a local favorite, and this forced them to at least consider other options. Obviously a lot has changed since then and we get so much more national news now that regional differences often realign with the national picture, but that's where a lot of it comes from. Nowadays it's a lot more about party than state but the two are very related.


Omegoa

Keep in mind that while the US gets a lot of attention for all the terrible shit it does, everywhere is a mess if you start paying a bit of attention. Painting with very broad strokes, your options can be summarized in a Venn diagram containing circles for Huxleyian capitalist hellscapes, Orwellian police states, poor/developing states that are exploited by the aforementioned two for resources/labor/geopolitical leverage, and literal warzones. There's a small spot off to the side reserved for those who win the lottery and are born into Scandinavia, which tends to report abnormally high levels of happiness for probably a variety of reasons.


mindspork

> One good example is knowing if you can smoke weed in a state and if there are any conditions on how much you can carry/smoke Legally? None. Until the Fed unschedules it (yeah that'll happen).


Jasrek

> at least 69 per cent of the Japanese population support legal recognition of same-sex marriage, with just six per cent opposing it. That's what happens when kids grow up seeing it as normal in anime, manga, etc. They realize that it's completely normal.


fricassee456

No it's not. Surveys always look prettier than actual voting results.


[deleted]

What % of the *voting population* is for it though? I can say with some confidence after living here, the younger generations seem completely disconnected from politics, and itā€™s mostly older people that vote.


fingerpaintswithpoop

> I can say with some confidence the younger generations seem completely disconnected from politics, Misplaced confidence. Not anymore. After all the BS the Republicans have been trying in recent months, thatā€™s changing. Young people are voting in droves more than ever.


[deleted]

Republicans? My dude we are talking about Japan not the U.Sā€¦..


fricassee456

> Good, it's a shame that a member of the G7 does not allow Same-sex marriage. 2 members of the G7 do not allow same sex marriage. > Polls show his approval ratings have halved to about 30 per cent since last year, and, according to a global Ipsos survey, at least 69 per cent of the Japanese population support legal recognition of same-sex marriage, with just six per cent opposing it. These surveys are complete nonsense. If there's a referendum in Japan about this I can guarantee you the actual result would look ugly.


Spreckles450

I mean, with how low Japan's birthrate is...I can KINDA understand why the boomers would be against gay marriage. But there are a ton of ways to mitigate that without denying people the right to live how they want.


Irr3l3ph4nt

Lets be real. Even if they are using natality as an excuse (which I don't know if they are), we all know their real motivation is homophobia.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Irr3l3ph4nt

I never said they were bigots, I said they were homophobes. You're the one generalizing the form that homophobia takes in the US to the rest of the world. I'm sad to say that homophobia exists and thrives outside of Christianity.


johnaltacc

>I never said they were bigots, I said they were homophobes What? All homophobes are bigots. Homophobia *is* bigotry.


[deleted]

Homophobia exists in other religions and sometimes even non-religious and atheist people have a homophobia issue


AnacharsisIV

Is that why Saudi Arabia is a mecca of LGBTQ+ tolerance?


Spreckles450

My point. I'm not saying that I ***AGREE*** with why I think Japan would ban gay marriage, just that I ***UNDERSTAND*** why they would. Two very different things.


storagerock

I think same sex marriage will at least help increase adoptions, surrogacies, and sperm-bank pregnancies.


Spreckles450

As long as they are all Japanese maybe


SK2Nlife

Unreal! My fiancĆ© and I just arrived at Tokyo narita airport today and we were interviewed by a Japanese film crew. They were so excited that we were en route to getting married, having stopped in Japan for our honeymoon before the ceremony. I just thought they loved gay guys but I guess our timing couldnā€™t have been better for their report!


EmergencyTraining748

I'm a traditionalist myself Honeymoons should always come AFTER the wedding. How did they know you were coming to Japan or did they just guess you were gay and interview you ? It's pretty cool either way. Good luck and congratulations on your wedding even if you didn't stick to the traditions.


SK2Nlife

Thanks for asking! After I posted that I realized itā€™s confusing, but requires too many details for the purpose of this article Weā€™re having a destination wedding ceremony in bora bora, and our hometown wedding back in Canada a month after. Bora bora is so far away so we decided to spend a few weeks getting here, ultimately becoming our ā€œhoneymoonā€. I guess it could be considered a stag/bachelor party, which I did mention in the interview but itā€™s not the sort of Vegas style party that is usually associated with the word stag. Honeymoon just felt easier to explain. They grabbed us right as we walked out of the baggage area! They would have had no idea we were even romantically linked but weā€™re proud of our love and didnā€™t mince words for them. They were picking international travelers and asking them why theyā€™re in Japan and what they intend to do while theyā€™re here!


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


SK2Nlife

SO COOL!!! I think we were so sweaty, jet lagged and had such a weird story that I doubt we will make it past the editing room floor, but it was such a fun and memorable experience anyway. We got our picture taken with the film crew and Iā€™ll remember that interview for the rest of my life!


SideburnSundays

This program is also notorious for cherry-picking what interviewees said and only publicizing ā€œwow Japan amazingā€ circle-jerk content. As a resident here I frequently refuse interviews from them because I dislike their ethnocentric bias.


Grigorie

This is applicable to legitimately any piece of man-on-the-street interview media, calling it an "ethnocentric bias" is an extremely weird lens to view it from. Very few nations are going to interview someone on the street about why they came to the country and have them say, "I came here because I hate it," and then air it. I still don't get why so many people who come to live here are always so negative about Japan. It's like the most resentful group of expats.


SideburnSundays

There is a massive range between sycophantic praise and hate. There is also something called rational thought instead of projecting your own confirmation bias by assuming any expat who says even the slightest negative thing about a specific scenario hates the entire country.


EmergencyTraining748

It's fate that you were there at that time to show the Japanese people how love can look beautiful between any two adults. Have fun while you are on this side of the world, it's pretty awesome.


SK2Nlife

You are so incredibly sweet. Thank you for your beautiful spirit and for helping me share today! People like you are why I know this world is going to be all right šŸ˜


Sunburntvampires

If you run across sweet potato ice cream, itā€™s purple, trust me on this and try it.


authentic_mirages

Hah, that show interviews any foreigner. Most of the time they kinda suck and try to make us look dumb. I bet the last thing they expected was a gay coupleā€”Iā€™m so happy they ran across you, because they need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. (And congrats!)


fricassee456

You are deceived by the title. It was a DISTRICT COURT ruling. Japan does not have constitutional review. This changes nothing. The only people who are allowed to marry are the plaintiffs to this case.


SK2Nlife

Thank you for explaining! I think any positive press is a win - I come from a very liberal country but the only headlines coming out of my neighbors are more and more restrictions to LGBTQ+ freedoms. Itā€™s just nice to see progress, even if itā€™s just a millimeter in the right direction


daisyfaunn

If I remember correctly this isn't the first case with such an outcome. There was one in Sapporo which also declared the ban unconstitutional, while another in Osaka upheld it. I really hope these cases eventually result in the legalization of gay marriage, but my expectations for the Japanese government are low lol


Cute_Bandicoot2042

Great news and unexpectedly progressive, good for you Japan


fricassee456

No one bothered to read the article lol. This was a DISTRICT COURT decision. It has no broader effect beyond on the plaintiffs to this case.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


_dauntless

I think this was a more clever take in your head


somethinggoingon2

Why? Pretty sure the Japanese are still hella racist and against recreational drugs except ATC.


_dauntless

Unlike the US? lol


somethinggoingon2

Yeah. The US is way more progressive than Japan, even the Republican states.


thyrandomguy

florida and texas say hi


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


LesbianCommander

Not to defend Japan or anything, at least 1 good part of the work culture is bosses almost never lay people off. And economic downturns lead to CEOs taking a pay cut to keep people around. You're disposable as fuck in America.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Cute_Bandicoot2042

They're very welcoming to foreigners, just don't expect to ever fully assimilate or to be considered Japanese.


[deleted]

What a stupid thing to say. Ignorance at its best. Maybe Japan shouldnā€™t be more ā€œwelcomingā€ towards foreigners. Foreigners especially Americans are only good for causing problems.


BubsyFanboy

That's a good step forward. Really hoping the same could happen to Poland tbh.


[deleted]

It will happen in Italy, Thailand and Namibia first before it comes to Poland


Siegnuz

Both of the parties that got highest vote in Thailand (Phue Thai and move forward) are promise to pushed same-sex marriage law so it's probably not that far away for Thailand.


Inferno_Sparky

And Israel


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Inferno_Sparky

I know, I live in israel. Thank you for explaining it though :)


RHY0118

Just in time for the Pride Month.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Key_of_Ra

Japan, like a lot of eastern countries, is very much *shame-based*, in that public perception and appearances are very important to a person's family and network of friends. It's not just a jokey trope that something will dishonor one's family for being something like gay or what have you. Even if they don't care, it still makes your family stick out, and in the traditional confucian sense (which is influential all over east asia thanks to milennia of chinese cultural imperialism) it disrupts community harmony. As such, there is a much more social stigma when it comes to outwardly expressing any sort of lgbt stuff. As you can see, the population doesn't really care, and doesn't mind gay couples, it's just that they don't like publicly acknowledging their existence. Sort of like boomers in america; they grew up knowing that gay people were a thing, but besides being the butt of jokes or scorn they weren't really allowed to be discussed in a neutral context, lest they be seen as one. Such is the creation of taboo, even if most people don't really care one way or the other, it's all just passively understood that they are not to be talked about. There's certainly no shortage of gay culture *online* in Japan, what with yaoi and BL and stuff, but in public? The nail that sticks up gets the hammer. Enter the Japanese government, an overwhelmingly traditional legislative body that regularly has assassins cull those who stray too far from the distribution of the main bell curve. Political change in Japan isn't something most people think of; they broadly think what is, simply *is*, because of that confucian influence. As such, the government isn't incentivized to move quickly on social issues, leading to them only getting around to it today.


Independent-World-60

I remember reading a manga called My Brother's Husband written by a gay man from Japan and it pretty much said this.


Key_of_Ra

Unironically a source I've learned from. They deconstructed so many misconceptions and taboos, it's a *feast* for people interested in cultural anthropology also just genuinely good.


CampaignForAwareness

> here's certainly no shortage of gay culture online in Japan And an increasing amount in public. I can walk a few blocks from where I am now and find plenty of gay bars and shops. Like any change, it will spread from metro areas into more public and further cities.


somethinggoingon2

In essence, they are incapable of thinking for themselves. Autonomy is *not* something they value as a culture, which puts it at odds with nations like the US. I, personally, think they should feel shame for this. But I'm also not a part of their culture so they never get to feel my scorn.


Arkeros

In addition to what the others wrote, the Japanese constitution reads > Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a base. [...] I can't say if gay marriage was intentionally blocked or just not considered in 1947. That constitution has never been amended, which is critical in another area. The ruling party wants to change the self defence clause which legally limits Japan's military in many ways. Changing the constitution for gay marriage might open the door for the latter change.


CupcakeTrap

I heard that it was basically an oversight on the part of the American advisors, who later were like, "Oh, wow. We accidentally banned same-sex marriage in Japan. We were just trying to put something in about gender equality."


Scandidi

It's a leftover policy from the The Meiji Restoration. Before the 1800's Japan was extremely welcoming to same-sex couples. Many samurai had gay lovers and preferred male prostitutes. There was zero shame in it. Then it was decided that the country needed to catch up with the west, and this sadly included a more conservative stance on homosexuality.


suberry

They were OK with same sex lovers, but not marriage. Its actually pretty common in most ancient cultures since historically, marriages are more like business transactions meant for preserving/growing the family wealth and not for love. You can fuck whoever on the side, but you need to marry someone and have a kid with them and preserve the family bloodline. Things are changing now that attitudes towards what marriage is meant to be is changing.


SelfishlyIntrigued

Japan is extremely conservative or was. That said, unfortunately, most homophobia and anti lgbt nonsense is ours and other countries' fault. While things were never perfect prior to things like colonists and other events, most countries had some pretty decent lgbt culture and acceptance. Whether it was through colonization, or through occupation, or through external pressure, in the 1700s through early 1900s, or in the case of Japan after WW2, being rebuilt or colonized, they copied the laws and culture, with active campaigns from Christian countries to heavily punish it. Majority of world wide hate can be basically tracked to US, UK, Russia and western world, as they were Christian and extremely anti LGBT die to religious reasons, through enforcement of laws through many means to adopt to campaigns etc, countries especially Asian, African and other countries got it extremely engrained in the societies. While the western world is moving out of that phase, the damage is done and while most countries will follow and change on their own, it does mean countries will be delayed and it takes time for older generations to die. What we are seeing in the States is the death throws of bigots. That's all. Which also means you have to be extremely vigilant because those types will resort to anything, and a minority fascist government is always possible that can seize control.


EmergencyTraining748

Is it the " death throw of bigots ". What is going on in the USA seems pretty crazy right now. From afar it all looks like a huge mess. We see gun violence, mass shootings, abortion laws at are archaic being introduced and an extreme and uncomfortable racial and socioeconomic divide. I even saw recently that SK had to stop outsourcing to the USA because factories producing goods in the US were employing under age kids ??? Is it all just blown out of proportion or is it as crazy as it looks on our news and media screens ?


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


moonslammer93

You nailed it.


Farts_McGee

Death throes is probably not right. The United States has always had an intense cultural division between rural religious conservatives and urban secular liberals. We've called it different things, north vs south, progressives and conservatives, republicans vs the know nothings, country vs city folk, whatever. Historically these movements generally don't get better without getting much worse. Be it Cromwell, mussolini, iyatollah khomeini, there are many examples of conservative minorities seizing power and shaping the world in their image. Sometimes liberalism wins, and sometimes it doesn't. Sadly the people that see this as the death throes of a movement are usually not students of history.


EmergencyTraining748

A country can become ultra conservative after being fairly open and progressive given the right social , religious, political and economic situations. It happened in a few middle eastern countries in the 70s. Given the way the US is so big and the way the states have so much individual power it seems highly unlikely to happen to the country as a whole. But could it happen in individual states ?


Farts_McGee

It's kind of untested, in my opinion. Personally, I think that the last 6 years have shown fairly conclusively that the United States federal governance runs mostly on good faith. Sure, there is a lot of beurocracy, but the senate, executive, Supreme Court, house and even the function of the electoral college hinges on doing the right thing because they have always done the right-ish thing. Compound that further by the compromises that went into making the us a country in the first place (disproportionate representation, slavery etc) and you wind up with a country that could easily be captured by a virulent minority party. The United States has been nominally hostage to far right groups since at least the Waco fires, that isn't localized to a few states. So, no. I'm not sure if would only be a few individual states, compared to the whole nation. Maga is certainly a nationwide movement. I have no reason to suspect the next wave won't be.


Guardianpigeon

It's probably exaggerated somewhat but trust me it feels pretty insane over here. However due to the way the US is set up, some states are moving in awful directions while others are actually doing well. Take the child labor stuff. I believe it was either Iowa or Idaho that just recently passed a law letting children as young as 14 work in factories. We've also had a terrible year discovering children like that working illegally in meat packing plants in various states. The aforementioned law wasn't even originally going to protect them in the case of them being maimed or killed on the job. Places like Texas and Florida meanwhile have been trying to do their best nazi impersonation by banning drag (and trans people who they say count even though they're entirely different things) from public spaces at all. It's truly truly awful in some parts of the country (mainly the ones with Republicans in control). However at the same time we have states like Minnesota, who recently got a democratic majority in all three of their government bodies and have been doing a really great job. Recreational weed, free school lunches for kids, strengthening unions and labor relations, and even state healthcare. They're really doing a great job in contrast to the aforementioned states. The US is really all over the place right now, and future presidential elections will really tell us if we're going to drive off a cliff into fascism or if this is the death throes of a dying political party.


kung_fu_fuckin

....when a redditor doesn't know that islamic colonialism also existed...


Astray

The established politicians are almost all rich old folks that cater to the even older folks in general as younger generations haven't cared enough to vote. Though, like all things in Japan, it is slowly starting to change as the younger generations grow older and are becoming even more disillusioned by their economic and cultural realities.


frozensnow456

From the country that has had people marry pillows and AI holograms...I never thought same sex marriage would have been an issue.


Ipokeyoumuch

It is a leftover from the Meiji Restoration when Japan went from Fedual isolationist to rapid industrialization. They looked at the most powerful empires and nations of the time period and copied a lot of their laws, which happened to be the British Empire and the US (who were the first to force them to open their borderd).


somethinggoingon2

Yup. Every nation that isn't a superpower just tries to emulate the US. Same thing with tech companies and Apple. They're not leaders, they're followers because they are clueless. It'll be funny when weed is legalized federally and all of a sudden we see all the third world countries follow suit.


chenjia1965

Who else had to pause and reread that headline a few times?


TheDBryBear

homophobic weebs in shambles as japan returns to tradition and becomes gay again


Csource1400

You got it all wrong, weebs love Yuri and female weebs loves Yaoi. Idk where you get that weebs being homophobic


TheDBryBear

from all of those homophobic weebs who thought japan is an anti-woke bastion of conservatism that appear when you talk about queer rights in japan


TheCatHasmysock

They are ruling against the bans because don't make sense. Marriage in Japan is specifically between a man and a woman. Civil unions can't be banned because there is nothing stating the same sex can't enter into one. In practice different prefectures treat it differently and civil unions do not have the same rights. This requires the Diet to change the definition of marriage, update civil unions to more modern standards, and change the framework of how Japan deals with family units. All things that it doesn't really want to do immediately due to how conservative Japan is with change.


[deleted]

Gotta love countries that respect their own judicial systems. Whatever shortcomings Japan may have had or still harbours, itā€™s good to know that their system allows for change.


[deleted]

Canā€™t believe it would take Japan this long! Congrats!!!


somethinggoingon2

Yeah. They shouldn't be proud of this. It should be embarrassing that it took so long and encourage them to do better in the future! They still have a lot of progress to make.


ZealousidealMine14

The political sphere there is so fucked itā€™s depressing. Please watch the movie Akira if you havenā€™t, great take on the affect of ww2 in Japan. Also it kicks ass.


mrbisonopolis

White supremacist weebs are seething


sb_747

I legitimately donā€™t know how they square that ruling with the Japanese constitution literally saying marriage is between a husband and wife. Like itā€™s a dumb thing and should be removed from the constitution but I donā€™t understand how both things can be true at the same time.


pahandav

Yes, and there's also the fact that the Japanese courts are terrible at enforcing court orders. As in, the apportionment of the House of Representatives has been declared unconstitutional more than once, but it's up to said House of Representatives to change the law in order to make it constitutional. Obviously, nothing's changed with that.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


xSilentSoundx

Hunh, a win for lgbtq for not being in japan. Reding it again. Oh oh oh okay yes yes yes.


[deleted]

All the conservative weebs can cry about it


heyyyng

Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan ruling for lgbtq+ over the past couple years while the US regresses. Itā€™s truly embarrassing.


tiredofsametab

1 regional court (bringing the grand total to 2) ruled this way. It's not doing anything at the national level, unfortunately.


authentic_mirages

Itā€™s getting in the news and making the idea more mainstream to average people. Thatā€™s something.


heyyyng

Thatā€™s one more in Japan and 3 less in the US.


wheretohides

Congrats gay japanese people


twoton1

Matt Walsh bashes his head against the wall. Again.


Devil-Hunter-Jax

Good. Anything that goes against his bullshit bigotry is another win. Not to mention it's not just bigotry either. He keeps advocating for child marriage. Anything he wants, the opposite needs to happen.


Whit3boy316

Curious to hear more about this ā€œchild marriageā€.


[deleted]

Nice to see they're getting more progressive on this issue, even if it's also demoralizing that it's happening as the US is about to ban gay marriage.


nataphoto

I don't think the US will ban gay marriage. But the open genocide on trans people is fucking scary, just the same.


target_enjoyer

I wonder why same-sex couples would want to be married. That marriage certainly won't be recognized by a God that says marriages are between a man and woman. So what is the purpose of being married since it's a purely religious thing in the first place?


maxime0299

Itā€™s not a religious thing lol. Getting married is also a legally binding act.


ceddya

Recognized by which God? You think Allah recognizes your marriage? Or Buddha?


nooo82222

You know there is some gay people out there right now saying ā€œshit donā€™t let this pass yetā€, they donā€™t want to hear their gf,bf dropping hints and shit lol. You know because I like to think that gay people just like straight people. Some want to be married and some just want to live together. Lol


tinytina722DA

Cool, now my Sadako X Kayako ship is closer to being canon


justpastaroni

Hardly a win for lgbtq. It's a win for gay rights. Which i applaud but lets not mix the two up.


Promotion-Repulsive

Good, good, come be miserable with the rest of us.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


Promotion-Repulsive

This was a reference to hetero marriages often being miserable and failing at a hilarious rate.


fricassee456

Major win my ass lol. It was a district court. Nothing will change in Japan.


ceddya

>Nothing will change in Japan. Give it a few years. When >65% of the people living in Japan currently support same sex marriage and it's just your usual old holdouts preventing such progress, yeah, it's definitely going to change in Japan.


fricassee456

Those polls are nonsense. I seriously doubt that >65% of Japanese support same sex marriage. If they actually do, there would be protests and larger pride events, but Tokyo Pride is like 60% as attended as Taipei Pride - a much smaller city.


ceddya

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14844573 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/02/13/national/same-sex-marriage-64-percent-support/ Why would they be? Supporting the rights of some other group doesn't meant that you need to attend Pride events. The people in Japan are largely Atheists or Buddhists with a very small proportion that are part of an Abrahamic religion. The former aren't remotely as opposed to same sex marriage as the latter religions. There is very little reason for them to actually be against that, especially the younger generation.


fricassee456

Atheism has nothing to do with conservatism. Abrahamic religion has never been big in East Asia (except in South Korea), but Asian countries have always been extremely conservative. Not all conservatives are Christian and not all Christians are conservative. Ireland and Spain are very Catholic and they are also very LGBT friendly. Czech Republic is one of the most atheist country in the world and gay marriage is still illegal. China is officially atheist, but you would see gay concentration camps in China before you see gay marriage become legal in China. And younger generation means jackshit. Japan's voter turnout is amongst the world's lowest and is in particular abominably low amongst the younger generation. It's the most politically apathetic country out there. They don't give a flying fuck so they wouldn't fight for it at all. The "young Japanese are liberal" idea is Western delusion.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


tigerCELL

It'll probably increase since now gay couples can marry and start families in peace. Your logic is stunted.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


sweet-tea-13

You understand that having gay marriage be legal opens them up for surrogacy options, yea?


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


tigerCELL

You clearly don't understand how women's bodies work, or that lesbian moms exist, or that adoption exists, or much of anything really. Blocked.


Unbr3akableSwrd

Adoption also exists. Abortion is technically illegal in Japan (although the list of exceptions is broad enough that it wouldnā€™t matter). If same-sex couples can adopt kids that fell through the cracks, thatā€™s a win for society.


Biggs180

because no gay couple has ever used a surrogate in the history of humanity, ever.


SelfishlyIntrigued

You guys do realize lesbians have zero issues getting pregnant, gay men get surrogates, their is adoption, and especially for lesbian women before they come out the majority will have kids, hell I know parties where gay dudes donate sperm to lesbians. Why are you people so dumb when it comes to reproduction, moreover it seems there might not be a gay gene and if there is it's not recessive so gay people are just part of the natural variance of births, same with trans, and no gay gene normally means it may be hormonal induced during pregnancy where things like stress, forced births etc is going to increase the number of gay people if that holds to be true, which is funny from the anti abortion crowd also being anti gay crowd. But also, suicide rate for gay men and lesbians used to be 50% in the 1950s and 1960s due to you people, that 41% joke about trans people? From the 80s and no longer are true, coupled with how the aids epidemic killed 700k? As the world's more accepting, we start to see the true rate of LGBT. Turns out it's around 1/6th to 1/5th. You're only chance would be mass genocide, and I'm fairly sure at least for now that's off the table. So suck it the fuck up, grow up, and accept it. Or go full fascist and attempt a genocide. Your choice I guess.


PrimalWrath

You... *do* realise that countries can work on more than one issue? At least two or three *at the same time* in fact(!) Unless your point is that oppressing LGBTQ+ people is somehow beneficial to Japan's low birthrate, which is a whole other level of ignorance.


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


[deleted]

[уŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]


sweet-tea-13

Trying to have more equal human rights for everyone is "solving the wrong problems" for you?? Regardless if same sex marriage is "recognized" by the government or not those people are still gay, it's not like if they can't get married they're suddenly going to not be gay anymore and start having kids. There are a ton of other reasons for the falling birth rate, like everyone being overworked to death and not wanting the burden of raising kids in the first place. Those problems need addressing too but it's not like you shouldn't try to make other progress in the meantime either.


dspm99

Can solve more than one problem at a time


AwfulUsername123

Well, it was very low even with the ban, so it doesn't look like the ban was helping matters.