A court found Japan’s refusal to legalize same-sex marriage was constitutional Friday in the last of six cases that are expected to be brought to the Supreme Court for a final and definitive ruling, possibly next year.
The Tokyo High Court said marriage under the law is largely expected to be a union between men and women in a decision that reversed a lower court ruling last year and was the first loss at high courts in the six cases brought by those seeking equal marriage rights.
Judge Ayumi Higashi said a legal definition of a family as a unit between a couple and their children is rational and that exclusion of same-sex marriage is valid. The court also dismissed damages of 1 million yen ($6,400) each sought by eight sexual minorities seeking equal marital rights.
Plaintiffs and their lawyers said the decision was unjust but they were determined to keep fighting through the Supreme Court.
“I’m so disappointed,” plaintiff Hiromi Hatogai told reporters outside the court. “Rather than sorrow, I’m outraged and appalled by the decision. Were the judges listening to us?”
“We only want to be able to marry and be happy, just like anyone else,” said another plaintiff, Rie Fukuda. “I believe the society is changing. We won’t give up.”
With all six high court cases done, the Supreme Court is expected to handle all appeals and make a decision.
Though discrimination still exists at school, work and elsewhere, public backing for legalizing same-sex marriage and support in the business community have rapidly increased in recent years.
Japan is the only member of the Group of Seven industrialized countries that does not recognize same-sex marriage or provide any other form of legally binding protection for LGBTQ+ couples.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi ‘s conservative ruling Liberal Democratic Party is the main opponent of same-sex marital rights in Japan. The government has argued that marriage under civil law does not cover same-sex couples and places importance on natural reproduction.
More than 30 plaintiffs have joined the lawsuits on marriage equality filed across Japan since 2019. They argue that civil law provisions barring same-sex marriage violate the Constitutional right to equality and freedom of marriage.
Friday’s ruling was only the second that found the current government policy constitutional after the 2022 Osaka District Court decision.
The European Court of Justice has issued a ruling that all nations in the European Union (EU) must recognize lawful same-sex marriages that were performed in other EU countries. Previously, a country could refuse to recognize a marriage if it had taken place in another country and did not align with its own laws.
The court declared that EU citizens have a right to “a normal family life” regardless of borders. “When they create a family life in a host member state,” they said, “in particular by virtue of marriage, they must have the certainty to be able to pursue that family life upon returning to their member state of origin.”
Citizens of the European Union have the right to freedom of movement between the different nations within the union. The court suggested that this right, as well as the right to “respect for private and family life,” would be breached if one country could refuse to acknowledge a lawful marriage from another country.
The court added in a press release, “Member States are therefore required to recognize, for the purpose of the exercise of the rights conferred by EU law, the marital status lawfully acquired in another Member State.”
The case was brought to the Luxembourg-based court on behalf of a Polish couple who had been married in Berlin, Germany, where same-sex marriage is recognized. When, years later, they returned to their home country, they submitted their marriage certificate, which was in German, to the Polish government to be transcribed and recognized in the Polish civil register.
The Polish government denied their request, as the country does not recognize same-sex marriages. With this new ruling, they will no longer be able to refuse legally.
Of the 27 EU member states, only 18 have legalized same-sex marriage.
LGBTQ+ rights have taken some big hits in Poland in recent years. The far-right Law and Justice Party held power from 2015 to 2023 and enacted a range of anti-LGBTQ+ policies during that time. It was only in April of this year that the last “LGBT-free” zone created by the party was finally repealed.
Poland is currently led by a coalition government. The prime minister, Donald Tusk, campaigned on introducing same-sex civil unions and has pushed for such legislation to be passed. However, Poland’s president, Karol Nawrocki of the Law and Justice Party, has said that he would veto any legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage.
When the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices meet behind closed doors on Friday, the justices will decide whether to hear an appeal from former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, a name that became synonymous with anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes to marriage equality a decade ago.
Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after Obergefell v. Hodges made marriage equality the law of the land in 2015, has asked the court not only to overturn her financial settlement in a civil case loss in lower courts but also to reconsider the landmark ruling itself.
While Davis’s petition centers on whether she can be held personally liable for emotional-distress damages, her legal team is also urging the justices to revisit the constitutional right to marry. For those who remember the culture war that surrounded Davis’s defiance, the possibility that her name might again appear on the Supreme Court docket has reignited deep anxiety across the LGBTQ+ community
In separate interviews with The Advocate, Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff whose name now defines that right, and GLAD Law legal director Josh Rovenger described the moment as both surreal and revealing. One is the man who stood before the Court ten years ago and won the right to have his marriage recognized. The other works at the organization that helped secure that victory. Both see the Davis petition not just as a legal maneuver but as a test of whether the country can sustain a principle it once declared settled.
“A narrow case, shoehorning a broad agenda”
Rovenger explained what this case is and what it isn’t.
“This is a narrow case with a technical legal question,” he said, emphasizing that it concerns emotional-distress damages and qualified immunity, not marriage equality itself. “Attorneys who want to overturn Obergefell are trying to shoehorn that into a very narrow case.”
Davis, a former Rowan County clerk, was found liable for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of clearly established law. A jury awarded damages to those couples, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Davis’s petition now asks the Supreme Court to review that ruling, Rovinger explained. While she has framed the case as one about her religious freedom, Rovenger said the issue before the Court remains technical.
“The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions a year,” he said. “It would really be anomalous for them to take a case with such a narrow fact pattern and use it to revisit Obergefell.”
Still, Rovenger acknowledged why people are uneasy.
“Given the rollback of rights we’ve seen in other areas, Dobbs being the most prominent, that fear makes sense,” he said. “But this case is not the vehicle for that kind of sweeping reversal.”
The limits of the Respect for Marriage Act
Part of the current confusion, Rovenger said, stems from uncertainty about how the Respect for Marriage Act interacts with the Obergefell decision. The 2022 law, signed by President Joe Biden, requires states and the federal government to recognize marriages performed in other states. However, it does not compel every state to issue marriage licenses if Obergefell were to be overturned.
“In a world where Obergefell didn’t exist,” he said, “a couple married in one state would still have their marriage recognized federally and by other states, but not necessarily be able to marry everywhere.”
He called that distinction significant, not only for its practical consequences but for what it would signal about equality itself.
“A patchwork approach across states,” he said, “is fundamentally different from a nationwide right.”
Rovenger also pointed to the Supreme Court’s own language on “reliance interests” — the idea that people build their lives on the stability of established rights. Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, he noted, has recently said marriage equality has created such interests, making it less likely to be undone. Barrett had told the New York Times that Obergefell created “concrete reliance interests.”
“Those interests,” Rovinger said, “remain one of the critical factors the Court considers when deciding whether to revisit precedent.” According to Gallup, 68 percent of Americans support marriage equality.
Jim Obergefell: “Disgusted by this twisting of religious freedom”
For Jim Obergefell, the case is personal. He said he was “disgusted” that his fellow citizens would work against another group’s well-being and happiness, using religious liberty as an excuse.
“This modern version of religious freedom — this belief that one’s personal religion trumps everything else — is a twisting and perverting of what our founders intended,” he said.
Obergefell said Davis’s refusal to follow the law was emblematic of a broader problem: public officials placing private faith above civic duty.
“She swore an oath to serve all people,” he said. “And yet she used her government position to persecute others.”
His frustration extends to the justices themselves and their recent decisions, which have often ignored established understandings of the law. Justice Clarence Thomas recently said that past decisions “aren’t gospel.”
“Why should anyone feel secure about the right to marry,” he asked, “when this Court has proven it doesn’t believe in precedent?”
“One of those justices’ own marriage exists because of a Supreme Court decision,” Obergefell said, referring to Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 ruling that struck down bans on interracial marriage. Thomas is Black, and his wife, Ginny, is white. “If this Court overturns Obergefell, then what does that say about their own logic?” Obergefell added.
“People should be concerned”
Obergefell said that the LGBTQ+ community’s fear is warranted.
“Absolutely, people should be concerned. I’m concerned,” he said on Saturday. “Yesterday I officiated a wedding for a cousin who asked whether they should get married now instead of waiting. My answer was yes.”
He explained that even with the Respect for Marriage Act in place, states could still move swiftly to block new marriages if Obergefell were struck down.
“Ohio [where I live] still has a Defense of Marriage Act on the books,” he said. “If Obergefell is overturned, Ohio could immediately say, ‘no more marriage licenses for queer couples.’”
Obergefell warned that political forces aligned against LGBTQ+ rights have shown a willingness to manipulate electoral systems to maintain power.
“We have a political party that has turned its back on democracy,” he said. “They’re doing everything they can solely to remain in power — to punish and to be vindictive.”
A fragile majority, a durable principle
Despite deep pessimism about the Court, Obergefell said he still finds hope in younger generations.
“They don’t see difference the way older generations do,” he said. “There are millions of people out there who share my values, who believe in humanity, who believe every person deserves happiness and rights. That gives me hope.”
Rovenger echoed the sentiment, though his version is more procedural.
“We’re all watching closely,” he said. “We’ll keep an eye on whether the case gets relisted and on any separate statements that come out. But we’re not panicking. We’re prepared for all possibilities and ready to meet that moment if it comes.”
For now, the fate of Obergefell doesn’t hinge on oral arguments or public hearings but on what happens in a private conference room inside the marble halls of the Supreme Court. Whether the justices see the Davis case as a technical dispute or a cultural flashpoint will determine not only one woman’s liability but perhaps the trajectory of a right that has defined a generation.
If the Court declines to hear the case, the lower-court rulings stand, and marriage equality remains intact. If it grants review, the nation will enter another defining chapter in its legal history.
Either way, Obergefell’s warning lingers: “They’ve turned the idea of freedom on its head,” he said. “And unless we stand up for what it truly means, we risk losing more than marriage, and we risk losing the very promise of equality itself.”
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday gave judges in the state a pass if they don’t want to marry same-sex couples, unilaterally granting public officials the right to discriminate against queer couples.
In an end run around equal protection concerns, the high court amended the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct to read, “It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief.”
The change follows years of litigation that inspired a lawsuit by a county judge in Texas asking federal courts to declare that Texas law does not and cannot punish him for his practice of officiating opposite-sex, but not same-sex, marriages in the state.
Jack County Judge Brian Umphress, who sued in 2020 because he only wanted to perform weddings for opposite-sex couples, argued that his conduct would run afoul of the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct, despite protections he believed he enjoyed consistent with his religious freedom rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Houston Public Media reports.
In response, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit put the lower federal-court proceedings on hold and asked the Texas Supreme Court to answer the question, “Does Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct prohibit judges from publicly refusing, for moral or religious reasons, to perform same-sex weddings while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings?” That part of the code requires judges to refrain from behavior that would “cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge.”
The high court’s answer came with the amended code of conduct, bypassing public argument.
Judge Umphress’ fear of sanction for his discriminatory conduct was based on the case of McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley in Waco, who spent years in court arguing she had a right to refuse to marry gay couples.
Hensley replied to requests from gay couples with a statement that read, “I’m sorry, but Judge Hensley has a sincerely held religious belief as a Christian, and will not be able to perform any same-sex weddings.”
That conduct earned a public warning from the Judicial Conduct Commission, which said Hensley was violating a requirement that justices of the peace be impartial, even in extrajudicial duties like officiating weddings.
Her refusal to treat LGBTQ+ people equally cast “doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the person’s sexual orientation,” the commission wrote.
Hensley claimed that no one’s rights were denied since a same-sex couple could have found another judge to marry them, despite the fact that she was the only justice of the peace performing marriages in Waco at the time.
Hensley filed a lawsuit against the commission with help from the First Liberty Institute, a Texas-based anti-LGBTQ+ legal organization, arguing for protections under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The commission eventually dismissed its sanction a few months after the Texas Supreme Court allowed Hensley’s case to proceed.
That decision from the Texas high court earned Hensley a supportive concurring opinion from the chief justice, who publicly supported the Waco judge before his appointment.
“Judge Hensley treated them respectfully,” Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock wrote of the couples she refused to marry. “They got married nearby. They went about their lives. Judge Hensley went back to work, her Christian conscience clean, her knees bent only to her God. Sounds like a win-win.”
Jason Mazzone, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who’s familiar with both cases, said the Texas Supreme Court’s code of conduct workaround still leaves open the possibility for a gay couple with standing to challenge a judge’s decision not to marry them on constitutional equal protection grounds.
“One of the claims that I think will be made in response to litigation that is likely is that, ‘Well, there are other people who can perform the wedding ceremony, so you can’t insist that a particular judge do it,’” Mazzone said. “But that, of course, is not how equal protection works, and it’s not how we expect government officials to operate.”
Under newly announced policy changes, the Ministry of Data and Statistics will recognise same-sex couples living in the same household in the Population and Housing Census.
The government confirmed on Tuesday (21 October) it would allow same-gender housholds to pick “spouse” and “cohabiting partner” options on the census, which circulates every five years.
Previous iterations flagged the options as errors and rejected, according to Rainbow Action Korea – a coalition of 49 LGBTQ+ organisations.
“In past surveys, couples of the same gender could not select ‘spouse’ even if they lived together as such. The system would return an error,” They said in a statement reported by Straits Times.
“This is the first step towards having LGBTQ+ citizens fully reflected in national data.”
Same-sex marriage is not currently legal in South Korea. As of 2023, cohabiting couples can receive spousal coverage under the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS).
A 2024 ruling upholding same-sex couple’s rights to access health insurance benefits was heralded as a “significant step” towards LGBTQ+ equality, with many arguing it paves the way towards legalising same-sex marriage.
The centre-left Justice Party similarly commended the government’s decision to update the census, arguing it could lead to “further change.”
“The day will come when even transgender citizens are visible in national statistics,” a spokesperson continued.
LGBTQ+ rights progress remains slow in the East Asian country. LGBTQ+ people are banned from adoption and military service, while hate crime protections are non-existent.
While legally changing gender has been permitted without sterilisation since 2020, gender-affirming care remains heavily restricted.
An Ipsos survery found that, as of May 2025, 31 per cent of South Koreans are anti-LGBTQ+, while 51 per cent oppose same-sex public displays of affection.
Despite this, nearly a quarter believe the country is a “good place” for LGBTQ+ people.
Rainbow Action argued that, while the move was a positive step, the government hadn’t done enough to inform the public about the change which could limit participation.
The Japanese government has expanded legal protections to same-sex couples.
According to The Japan Times, the government has decided to recognise same-sex couples as being in “de facto marriages” under nine additional laws, including the Disaster Condolence Grant law.
This follows a decision earlier this year to extend 24 existing laws – including the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Land and House Lease Act, Child Abuse Prevention Act, and Public Housing Act – to same-sex couples.
Japan’s LGBTQIA+ community has long been engaged in a battle for marriage equality.
Currently, the country’s constitution defines marriage as “mutual consent between both sexes” and does not recognise marriage equality.
“From the perspective of individual dignity, it can be said that it is necessary to realise the benefits of same-sex couples being publicly recognised through official recognition,” the court said on 20 June.
“Public debate on what kind of system is appropriate for this has not been thoroughly carried out.”
A few months later, a Tokyo court upheld the ruling.
However, despite the court doubling down on its stance, the presiding judge also stated that the lack of a legal system and protections for same-sex couples infringes on their human rights (per CNN).
While the marriage equality movement in Japan has suffered a handful of setbacks, it has also seen a few notable wins over the last three years.
A district court in Ukraine has formally recognized a same-sex couple as family, the first legal precedent of its kind in the country, the Kyiv Independentreports.
The plaintiffs in the case were Zoryan Kis, first secretary of Ukraine’s Embassy in Israel, and his longtime partner, Tymur Levchuk. The couple has lived together since 2013 and were married in the U.S. in 2021.
Ukraine does not currently recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions.
In 2024, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry refused to acknowledge Levchuk as Kis’ family member, denying him spousal rights to accompany his husband on his diplomatic posting to Tel Aviv. The couple filed a legal complaint naming the Foreign Ministry as a defendant in September.
The court’s decision cited both the Ukrainian constitution and precedent from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), to which Ukraine is a signatory. ECHR requires member states to ensure legal recognition and protection for same-sex families.
The couple’s shared finances and property, joint travel records, photographs, correspondence, and witness testimony were among the evidence considered by the court establishing a long-term domestic partnership.
“A very big and important step toward marriage equality in Ukraine, and a small victory in our struggle for ‘simple family happiness’ for Ukrainian diplomats,” Kis posted to Facebook after the court rendered its judgment.
“Now we have a court ruling that confirms the feelings Tymur Levchuk and I have for each other,” he said, while thanking the judge in the case.
Public support for LGBTQ+ rights in Ukraine has grown steadily in recent years as the country has drawn closer to Europe, and in particular after Russia’s war on the sovereign nation in 2022.
Legal progress on the issue has remained slow, however. Legislation recognizing civil partnerships was introduced in 2023 but hasn’t advanced through the Ukrainian parliament’s Legal Policy Committee.
The proposed bill would legalize civil partnerships for both same-sex and heterosexual couples, providing inheritance, medical, and property rights, but not the full status of marriage.
Kis and Levchuk are longtime civil rights activists in Ukraine. In 2015, the couple filmed a video for Ukrainian online magazine Bird in Flight, reenacting a recent social experiment conducted in Moscow featuring two young men holding hands as they walked through the city to gauge the public’s reaction. The responses in Kyiv mostly ranged from shrugs to bemusement, until Levchuk sat on Kis’ lap.
June 26, 2015 was a milestone day in the United States when the SCOTUS decision was announced in the case of Obergefell v Hodges. A narrow 5-4 ruling brought nationwide marriage equality for LGBTQ people much sooner than many expected it. I certainly did not even think it would occur in my lifetime. The nation was split down the middle on the topic. A piecemeal approach was commonplace, with some states making it legal before the ruling, and others staunchly opposed to it in their state constitutions. Yet, a conservative justice saw fit to challenge the status quo and actually base a ruling on the US Constitution for a change, rather than political ideology.
We had already been married for almost 4 years at that point. We were living in Texas in July 2011 and my boyfriend at the time decided to ask me to marry him (now her, but that is another story for another day). We had been living together nearly 10 years. Going to Canada was floated as an idea. I had family in New Jersey and Andrew Cuomo in New York had just its own marriage equality law June 24 that year to take effect in July. So, New York it was! I had become an internet wedding planner of my own wedding by then to be wed on October 09, 2011, one day difference from our “10th anniversary”. It was tedious. It was stressful. It was fun. It was one of the best days of my life. I will never do it again. Sorry boys and girls.
While our own wedding anniversary of 14 years is coming this fall, I sit here writing this and worried that we will have to go through even more bullshit to not only keep our marriage legally intact, but to ensure future generations maintain their right to due process and equality under the law. We have a Supreme Court who has already shown it has the balls to revisit and repeal established forward thinking case law precedent. See, Roe v Wade’s death as a result of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, and Alito, who each wrote a dissenting opinion in Obergefell v Hodges are still proudly part of the conservative super majority on the bench. Yes, there is a Respect for Marriage Act that was finally passed in 2022 to help reaffirm O v H.
But we also have a President and House who are willing to turn back time. We have state legislators, who are now firing the opening salvo towards repeal of marriage equality. House reps in 9 states in 2025 proposed resolutions urging SCOTUS to repeal O v H. Those resolutions were passed in North Dakota and Idaho. 4 other states introduced bills, which failed, to introduce covenant marriage to their books, which would have created an exclusive category for opposite sex couples.
I hope everyone enjoys their anniversary, whether you were married today or at another point in time. But please remain vigilant and pay fucking attention to what is going on around you. Your rights can always be removed with the stroke of a pen. And sometimes that pen needs to be shoved into an uncomfortable place.
This is us. Climate change was on full display.
John Turner-McClelland is the editor of several blogs including FleeRedStates. He is a licensed real estate agent in Texas and North Carolina. He was on a Vice News panel once and was allowed to speak for 5 seconds on air. He has been a proud liberal LGBTQ activist and former elected official for a few decades or so. Yes, he is still married.
Christian nationalist Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R) and state Rep. Jim Olsen (R) have filed a resolution asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Republican lawmakers in at least five other states have introduced similar resolutions, all of which are largely symbolic and non-binding.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 8 claims that the 2015 high court ruling conflicts with the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution, the country’s founding principles, and “the deeply rooted history and tradition” regarding state regulation of marriage rights. It also notes that 75% of Oklahoma voters supported banning any recognition of same-sex unions in a 2004 ballot measure.
The resolution refers to the Supreme Court decision as an “unwarranted governmental intrusion,” accuses the high court of abusing “the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to fabricate substantive rights,” and says the 2015 decision is “undermining the civil liberties” of states “without any valid constitutional warrant for doing so.”
“For millennia marriage has been understood, both in biblical teaching and in the Anglo-American common-law tradition, as the lifelong covenant union of one man and one woman,” the resolution states. “Obergefell arbitrarily and unjustly rejected and prohibited states from recognizing this definition of marriage in favor of its own definition of marriage and a novel, flawed interpretation” of the U.S. Constitution.
It also notes that both Democratic Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan had previously officiated same-sex weddings before the ruling and “should have recused themselves” from the Obergefell case. It further states that the decision has resulted in litigation directly targeting Christian business owners who refuse to accommodate same-sex couples and has resulted in Christians being vilified as “bigoted.”
“Obergefell played a role in erasing biological distinctions in other arenas, threatening women’s privacy, safety, and athletic opportunities,” the resolution adds, drawing a dubious connection between same-sex marriage and transgender people’s civil rights.
If the resolution is approved by state lawmakers, copies of it will be distributed to the Supreme Court, the president of the U.S. Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, members of the Oklahoma congressional delegation and the Oklahoma attorney general, the resolution states.
Similar resolutions have been introduced in at least five other states: Michigan, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Deevers & Olsen’s resolution relies on legal misinterpretations
The court’s 2015 decision relied partially on the 1967 high court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which granted marriage rights to heterosexual couples consisting of individuals from different racial ethnicities.
“If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied,” the Supreme Court wrote in its 2015 decision.
The court’s majority opinion also ruled that governmental refusal to recognize same-sex marriages denies them numerous benefits of marriage, including the ability to care for children and family members. State bans on same-sex marriages also restricted same-sex couples’ and their families’ ability to move freely around the country, since their rights could vary greatly if they moved to an anti-marriage state, the court ruling said.
As such, the court ruled that same-sex marriage bans violate both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause by needlessly introducing instability into same-sex relationships for no justifiable or compelling government interest.
While some Christian businesses have been sued for refusing to serve LGBTQ+ people and same-sex couples based on “sincerely held religious beliefs,” these lawsuits have focused on how such refusals violate public accommodations protections in state anti-discrimination laws, which require businesses to treat citizens equally, regardless of sexual orientation.
Deevers has long opposed same-sex marriages
Speaking last month to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC) — which has been certified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Research Center — Deevers said, “The fact is, Obergefell is fundamentally antithetical to all of these, and there is just no right to gay marriage in the Constitution.”
Despite this claim, the Supreme Court believes that the Constitution’s equal protection and due process provisions require the government to treat all individuals equally under the law unless there’s a compelling government interest to do otherwise.
“Ultimately, marriage is not the state’s institution, it’s God’s institution,” Deevers said. “No Supreme Court ruling that redefines a God-ordained institution is ever truly settled: not morally or culturally, and even constitutionally. The rogue court will stand in judgment before God for their decision.”
Deevers’s campaign website also clearly states his anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs.
“It is outrageous that drag queens are permitted to dance and twerk for children at pride parades and story hours in our state,” his website states. “It is outrageous that … public schools have exposed elementary and middle school children to… LGBTQ+ propaganda…. It is outrageous that Critical Race Theory and Queer Theory dominate in many of our public institutions. I promise to support legislation to put a stop to all of this.”
The Osaka High Court held that Japan’s lack of recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional on Tuesday. The Osaka High Court is the fifth court to rule that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional after similar rulings in the high courts of Sapporo, Tokyo, Fukuoka and Nagoya.
While Presiding Judge Kumiko Honda upheld the Osaka District Court’s decision not to award damages, Honda ruled that Japan’s Civil Code and Family Register Act that do not allow same-sex marriage violates the right to equality as set out in Article 14 of the Constitution of Japan, which states: “All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.” The court also ruled that the marriage ban breaches Article 24, where laws involving marriage and family “shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes.”
In 2019, three same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the Japanese government, requesting 1 million yen (about $7,400) in damages per person from the state. They were among 14 couples who filed lawsuits in Sapporo, Tokyo, Nagoya, Fukuoka and Osaka. The plaintiffs had appealed to the High Court after the Osaka District Court in June of 2022 ruled that the lack of same-sex marriage recognition was constitutional under the 1947 constitution as marriage was for heterosexual unions only, making the same-sex marriage ban lawful.
Japan is the only International Group of Seven (G7) country that does not recognise same-sex marriage. Human Rights Watch put out a dispatch highlighting how the other G7 countries are encouraging Japan to enact laws to allow same-sex marriage, counter discrimination and uphold protections for sexual and gender minorities. Prior to the May summit in 2023, LGBTQ groups called for Japan’s government to legalise same-sex marriage and while support for the LGBTQ community grows and the Japanese Diet, Japan’s national legislature, passed the Act on Promotion of Public Understanding of Diversity of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, promoting understanding of the LGBTQ.
Amnesty International indicated in a report that protections for sexual and gender minorities are still absent. Currently, in Japan, same-sex couples have some recognition from local governments, such as “partnership certificates,” offering some rights, but these do not give rights such as inheritance, spousal visits or parental recognition.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.