Japan’s High Court Rules Same Sex Marriage Ban Is Constitutional
The ruling keeps Japan as the only G7 nation without legal recognition for same sex couples despite growing public support.
Featured image by Naruecha Jenthaisong via Getty Images
The long campaign for marriage equality in Japan hit a harsh setback on Friday when the Tokyo High Court ruled that the country’s ban on same sex marriage is constitutional. The decision lands as the final high court ruling in a series of six lawsuits filed across Japan since 2019 and is the only one to uphold the government’s position.
The ruling surprised many who had watched courts from Sapporo to Fukuoka recognize constitutional violations in the marriage ban over the past two years. Those earlier opinions built momentum, encouraged a shift in public expectations and suggested that a national breakthrough might be approaching.
Presiding Judge Ayumi Higashi stated in court that the legal definition of family as a unit formed by a heterosexual couple and their children remains rational under current law. She also said that laws on same sex marriage should first be deliberated in parliament.
Related: Japan’s First Female Prime Minister’s LGBTQ+ Stance Draws Concern
Outside the courthouse, plaintiff Shino Kawachi described the ruling as “difficult to comprehend.” “What is justice?” she asked local media, according to the BBC. “Was the court even watching us? Were they considering the next generation?”
Her partner, Hiromi Hatogai, stood beside her and expressed her fury. She said she was “extremely outraged” and questioned whether the judiciary was “on our side.” In additional comments reported by the Associated Press, she added, “Rather than sorrow, I’m outraged and appalled by the decision. Were the judges listening to us?” Another plaintiff, Rie Fukuda, spoke about the ordinary life she hopes to build. “We only want to be able to marry and be happy, just like anyone else,” she said. “I believe the society is changing. We won’t give up.”
Their legal team held signs reading “unjust verdict” as supporters gathered to absorb the outcome. For many activists, Tokyo’s decision cuts against the tidal shift seen in the rest of the country. Five of the six high courts that heard these cases have already found the ban unconstitutional, even as they declined to award damages. Sapporo’s historic 2021 ruling said the civil code limiting marriage to a man and a woman was “unconstitutional [and] discriminatory” and emphasized that “enacting same sex marriage does not seem to cause disadvantages or harmful effects.”
Human rights groups reacted sharply to Friday’s ruling. Amnesty International called the decision a “damaging step backwards on same sex marriage.” In a formal statement, Boram Jang, Amnesty’s East Asia researcher, said “The court’s decision today marks a significant step backwards for marriage equality in Japan.” Jang added that “the government needs to be proactive in moving towards the legalization of same sex marriage so that couples can fully enjoy the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts.”
Related: Poland Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage, European Top Court Says
Japan’s ban leaves the country as the only G7 member with no legal recognition for same sex couples. Only Taiwan, Thailand and Nepal currently allow same sex marriage in Asia. Public opinion in Japan, however, has been moving steadily in the other direction. A widely cited 2023 survey found roughly two thirds of the population supports legal recognition.
That shift in attitude stands in tension with the political landscape. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has voiced her opposition in recent years, calling the issue a “very difficult problem.” Her conservative Liberal Democratic Party remains resistant to any legislative change. Government lawyers have maintained that civil marriage is fundamentally tied to natural reproduction.
With all high court cases now concluded, the next step is the Supreme Court. Appeals from each of the six lawsuits will be considered together. Given the mixed rulings, the country’s highest court faces a pivotal decision that could set a precedent long into the future.




