Same sex marriage to be legalised in Japan

[cottmann]

The Japanese Justice Ministry plans to clear the way for Japanese nationals overseas to marry same-sex partners who are citizens of countries where such unions are legal. All Japanese nationals To marry foreigners abroad, regardless of their sexual orientation, have to obtain certificates from the Justice Ministry by submitting documents that include their name, birth data, sex and nationality, and similar information about their marriage partner. Under the new approach, the ministry will issue a new type of certificate that only certifies that the person has reached legal marriage age and is single. It is not clear, however, whether resident foreigners will have the same rights as Japanese nationals.

[maisoui]

The Japanese Justice Ministry plans to clear the way for Japanese nationals overseas to marry same-sex partners who are citizens of countries where such unions are legal. All Japanese nationals To marry foreigners abroad, regardless of their sexual orientation, have to obtain certificates from the Justice Ministry by submitting documents that include their name, birth data, sex and nationality, and similar information about their marriage partner. Under the new approach, the ministry will issue a new type of certificate that only certifies that the person has reached legal marriage age and is single. It is not clear, however, whether resident foreigners will have the same rights as Japanese nationals.


This doesn't sound so much like providing a same-sex marriage legal situation as simply allowing the Emperor's subjects permission to enter such contracts with foreigners.

What is the position with Japanese and Japanese?

[cottmann]

This doesn't sound so much like providing a same-sex marriage legal situation as simply allowing the Emperor's subjects permission to enter such contracts with foreigners.
What is the position with Japanese and Japanese?

The American-written and imposed Japanese Constitution defines marriage as happening only between a man and a woman. so at least it is a step towards recognizing the Japanese citizens overseas can take advantage of the laws in those places that allow same-sex marriages.

Japanese, incidentally, are not subjects of the Emperor, and haven't been since 1947.

The American-written and imposed Japanese Constitution defines marriage as happening only between a man and a woman. so at least it is a step towards recognizing the Japanese citizens overseas can take advantage of the laws in those places that allow same-sex marriages.

Japanese, incidentally, are not subjects of the Emperor, and haven't been since 1947.

I am not quite sure if you are technically correct, cottman, although it could be splitting hairs. As far as I can see (and I can neither read nor speak Japanese, so the translations could be wrong) the constitution actually refers not to "a man and a woman" but to a "husband and wife" ( unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN016633.pdf ) which some could argue was ambiguous.

Similarly, are the Japanese any less "subjects" of their monarch than their British or Commonwealth counterparts, for example, or those other countries with a symbolic royal family? I really don't know.

[cottmann]

I am not quite sure if you are technically correct, cottman, although it could be splitting hairs. As far as I can see (and I can neither read nor speak Japanese, so the translations could be wrong) the constitution actually refers not to "a man and a woman" but to a "husband and wife" ( unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN016633.pdf ) which some could argue was ambiguous.

Similarly, are the Japanese any less "subjects" of their monarch than their British or Commonwealth counterparts, for example, or those other countries with a symbolic royal family? I really don't know.

The first part of Article 24 of the Japanese constitution reads, in translation, "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 basis.... " so I guess we're both correct.

Article 1, concerning the Emperor, states in translation, "The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and the unity of the people, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power." The Emperor is not Head of State and has only ceremonial powers, unlike monarchs elsewhere who have reserve powers. Passports identify people as Japanese nationals and are issued in the name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Japanese, or at least the ones I know, do not refers to themselves as "Japanese subjects."

[Brad the Impala]

I am not quite sure if you are technically correct, cottman, although it could be splitting hairs. As far as I can see (and I can neither read nor speak Japanese, so the translations could be wrong) the constitution actually refers not to "a man and a woman" but to a "husband and wife" ( unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN016633.pdf ) which some could argue was ambiguous.


In which particular and peculiar corner of the world could it be argued that the term "husband and wife" was legally ambiguous, and was not taken to mean a man and a woman?

[Bob]

In which particular and peculiar corner of the world could it be argued that the term "husband and wife" was legally ambiguous, and was not taken to mean a man and a woman?

Only on an internet message board in my view. Regardless of what rights ought to evolve for gay couples, societies have for thousands of years confined the concept of marriage to a man and a woman. Sorta makes sense to me given procreation is sorta the main notion behind that and, try as we might, not many of us are making too many babies....
That's the way it's always been and that's how 90% of the populations throughout the world see it (and, last I looked, that 90% seems to rule the roost, make the laws, etc.).

[Art]

In which particular and peculiar corner of the world could it be argued that the term "husband and wife" was legally ambiguous, and was not taken to mean a man and a woman?
Only on an internet message board in my view.
Once upon a time there were some colourful tribes in Africa ...

Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe, ed., write in "Boy-Wives and Female Husbands", New York 1988:



E. E. Evans-Pritchard, one of the most widely respected authorities on indigenous African cultures, said nothing about male homosexuality in his classic 1937 study, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Zande. Nor did he mention homosexual relations among the Nuer of southern Sudan in his equally influential monograph on that people. Decades passed from the time of his fieldwork until he finally reported what he had learned about male homosexuality among the once-fierce Azande of the northern Congo. In 1957, in a relatively obscure journal, and then in more accessible venues in 1970 and 1971, he related how Azande warriors routinely married boys who functioned as temporary wives.


This instance of age-stratified homosexuality, comparable in elaboration to the same-sex practices of ancient Crete or Sparta, had already lapsed by the time of Evans-PritchardтАЩs fieldwork in the 1930s, although it was still remembered. The scope of these practises might be entirely unknown today had Evans-Pritchard not decided to finally write about them shortly before his death.
[Boy-Wives, XIII]

Many of the young warriors married boys, and a commander might have more than one boy-wife. When a warrior married a boy he paid spears [brideprice], though only a few, to the boyтАЩs parents, as he would have done had he married their daughter. The warrior in other ways acted towards the parents as though he had married their daughterтАж. He addressed the parents as gbiore and negbiore, тАЬmy father-in-lawтАЭ and тАЬmy mother-in-law.тАЭ He gave the boy himself pretty ornaments; and he and the boy addressed one another as badiare, тАЬmy loveтАЭ and тАЬmy lover.тАЭ The boy fetched water for his husband, collected firewood and kindled his fire, bore his shield when travelingтАж. The two slept together at nights, the husband satisfying his desires between the boyтАЩs thighs. When the boy grew up he joined the company and took a boy-wife in his turn. It was the duty of the husband to give his boy-wife a spear and a shield when he became a warrior. He then took a new boy-wife. Thus, Kuagbiaru, a member and later one of the commanders of Prince GanguraтАЩs companies, married three boys in succession. (1971:199-200)
[Boy-Wives, 27 = Murray, Homosexualities, 162]
In the same book, Joseph M. Carrier and Murray write about тАЬWoman-Woman Marriage in Africa:тАЭ


Woman-woman marriage - in which one woman pays brideprice to acquire a husband's rights to another woman - has been documented in more than thirty African populations (O'Brian 1977:109) ...
[Boy-Wives, 255]


What seems to us, but not at all to Nuer, a somewhat strange union is that in which a woman marries another woman as the pater of the children born of the wife. Such marriages are by no means uncommon in Nuerland, and they must be regarded as a form of simple [b]legal marriage, for the woman-husband marries her wife in exactly the same way as a man marries a woman. When the marriage rites have been completed the husband gets a male kinsman or friend or neighbour, sometimes a poor Dinka, to beget children by her wife and to assist, regularly or when assistance is particularly required, in those tasks of the home for the carrying out of which a man is necessary. When the daughters of the marriage he will receive for each a тАЬcow of the begettingтАЭ and more beasts if he has played any considerable part in the maintenance of the home. (1951:108)



As among the Nuer, a rich and important Zulu woman can marry another woman by giving marriage-cattle for her, and she is the pater of her wifeтАЩs children begotten by some male kinsman of the female husband. (1950:184)
[Boy-Wives, 256]


A Nundi widow who had no children but possessed cattle could marry a young woman and become her manongтАЩotiod (тАЬhusbandтАЭ) by paying the current rate of bridewealth, whereupon the young woman became her тАЬwife.тАЭ This gave both women the [b]legal and social status of husband and wife respectively. There was no lesbianism involved here, for the female husband could have her own men friends and the wife could have intercourse with any man of whom her тАЬhusbandтАЭ approved. If she had children, not the man, but the female тАЬhusbandтАЭ of the young man [woman! Art] was the sociological father. (1973:412)

Placet experiri! But there seems to be a test ban on the social life of man. China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States have not yet ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) with the result that it has not yet come into force. Nothing is more terrifying than a modification of the relations between the sexes.

We can presume that the pathological conformism of the Japanese society will prevent the country from becoming an early adaptor of [b]unwritten tribal law from Africa.

1.01 with free red highlighting
1.02 with a free definition:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
Law. Law\ (l[add]), n. [OE. lawe, laghe, AS. lagu, from the root of E. lie: akin to OS. lag, Icel. l["o]g, Sw. lag, Dan. lov; cf. L. lex, E. legal.
A law is that which is laid, set, or fixed; like statute, fr. L. statuere to make to stand. See Lie to be prostrate.] 1. In general, a rule of being or of conduct, established by an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent or a power acts. Note: A law may be universal or particular, written or unwritten, published or secret. From the nature of the highest laws a degree of permanency or stability is always implied; but the power which makes a law, or a superior power, may annul or change it.

[Brad the Impala]

Art, culturally all very interesting. However not very illuminating in discovering where the terms husband and wife are legally ambiguous.

[cottmann]

Art, culturally all very interesting. However not very illuminating in discovering where the terms husband and wife are legally ambiguous.

I cannot find a legal definition of husband or wife in Japan, but marriage in Japan has traditionally been, in the Confucian tradition, for the begetting of children, and the kanji or character for wife is based on that used for a woman.

In which particular and peculiar corner of the world could it be argued that the term "husband and wife" was legally ambiguous, and was not taken to mean a man and a woman?

Maybe those countries which have gay marriage, rather than partnership?

I'm with Bob on this, and it appears that those countries which have opted to call the union something other than marriage (Civil Partnership, Civil Union, etc) have faced far less opposition - and, after all, what's in a name?

...it appears that those countries which have opted to call the union something other than marriage (Civil Partnership, Civil Union, etc) have faced far less opposition - and, after all, what's in a name?

What's in a name? Nothing...IF the benefits and rights are equal. Here in the US they are NOT. We have both State and Federal laws - the Federal right now being ruled by the infamous DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act - thank you Bill Clinton).

I'm still not clear on weather the Japanese law allows same-sex marriage for its citizens....

I'm still not clear on weather the Japanese law allows same-sex marriage for its citizens....

Only to foreigners whose countries permit it, apparently.

Japan is one of the few countries allowing British Embassies/Consulates to register Civil Partnerships between British citizens (or a couple where one is British), the others being Australia, Croatia, South Africa, Venezuela, Belarus, Israel, Switzerland, Vietnam, Colombia, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica, Moldova and the United States, although there are some conditions in some of those countries.

As far as I know they could get married to or form partnerships with those from Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Luxembourg, Spain or the United Kingdom.

[Brad the Impala]

I'm still not clear on weather the Japanese law allows same-sex marriage for its citizens....

Only to foreigners whose countries permit it, apparently.

Japan is one of the few countries allowing British Embassies/Consulates to register Civil Partnerships between British citizens (or a couple where one is British), the others being Australia, Croatia, South Africa, Venezuela, Belarus, Israel, Switzerland, Vietnam, Colombia, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica, Moldova and the United States, although there are some conditions in some of those countries.


This list is not exhaustive. The British Embassies in Czech Republic and Hungary certainly also register Civil Partnerships. I expect that there may be others too.

You are right, Brad, both lists are out of date. As far as I can see (and I have not checked that closely, so I could still be wrong), the countries allowing Civil Partnerships, under various names (cohabitation l├йgale, domestic partnership, civil union, registreret partnerskab, rekister├╢ity parisuhde, PACS, Lebenspartnerschaft, stadfesta samvist, geregistreerde partnerschap, registrert partnerskap, even marriage) are:

Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the states of Tasmania in Australia and California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey in the United States.

Countries allowing British Embassies/Consulates to register Civil Partnerships between British citizens (or a couple where one is British) are:

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Moldova, Mongolia, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

The situation is slightly complicated as in those countries which have their own Civil Partnership laws you cannot register a UK Civil Partnership with one of their citizens at the British Embassy, but have to do so either under their regulations or in the UK; some countries also allowing civil partnerships themselves appear not to have given permission for their British Embassy to register UK Civil Partnerships, which seems a little strange.

Domestic Partnerships law discusses about same sex marriage and couples agreement. Rights and equality are the two main concerns here. Domestic partnership only exists for gay couples within the U.K., however that may change if Stephanie Munro and Andrew O'Neill have anything to say about this. Here is the proof: LGBT lobbies UK Parliament for heterosexual equality (http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/12/06/heterosexual-equality-uk/). The couple has LGBT team OutRage! in their corner as they fight for heterosexual equal rights, writes Jezebel. This will help out not only opposite-sex couples seeking domestic partnerships, but it will aid gay couples also, argues the OutRage! campaign Equal Love.