「同性婚できないのは憲法違反」札幌地裁が日本初の判断 ―― このニュースが流れた時、私の取った行動は、裁判所の判例DBの検索をすることでした。

「同性婚できないのは憲法違反」札幌地裁が日本初の判断 ―― このニュースが流れた時、私の取った行動は、裁判所の判例DBの検索をすることでした。

"Sapporo District Court rules for the first time in Japan that same-sex marriage is against the Constitution". When this news came out, my first action was to search the court's case database.


Because I want to read the sentence without foresight.


As I've said before, the text of the ruling is interesting in itself, without any lofty motives such as "primary information is important"


If you look at the information in the media, it will be "spoiled" and less interesting.


Unfortunately, at that time, the sentence was not yet reflected in the DB.



So, even though I'm a little late, I've just read the judgment and I'm laughing... not burst laughing,


もっとも,同性愛を精神疾患の1つとし,禁止すべきものとする知見は, 昭和55年頃までは通用していたものであり,それは教育の領域においても広く示されていた。

However, the knowledge that homosexuality is one of the mental disorders and should be prohibited was accepted until around 1980, and it was also widely shown in the field of education.


One of the reasons why the majority of people in the relatively older age group of 60 years old and above have a negative opinion about same-sex marriage is that such knowledge was accepted and as a result, negative opinions and values about same-sex marriage have been formed among the people.


In light of this history, the fact that there are not a few citizens who have such negative opinions and values is a circumstance that the legislature can take into consideration when exercising its discretionary power.


江端(の悪意の)意訳 ↓

Ebata's (malicious) translation ↓

(1) 同性婚を、じじい達やばばあ達は、到底理解しないだろう

(1) Old guys and old ladies will never understand same-sex marriage.

(2) とは言え、票田を考えると、国会議員は、じじい達やばばあ達の存在を無視できないだろう。

(2) Nevertheless, given their voting power, Diet members will not be able to ignore the presence of the old guys and old ladies

(3) 上記(1)(2)を考えると、『同性婚を認める』という方向に立法府が動かんのは、まあ理解してやらんといかんだろう

(3) Considering (1) and (2) above, we have to understand that the legislature is not moving in the direction of 'recognizing same-sex marriage.

# まあ、一応、私も「じじい達」の範疇に入っているという自覚はあります。

# Well, I am aware that I am in the category of the "old guys".



However, the only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is the difference in sexual orientation, which cannot be chosen or changed by a person's will, and there should be no difference in the legal benefits that can be enjoyed by persons of any sexual orientation.


Nevertheless, homosexuals are not provided with the legal means to enjoy even some of the legal effects of marriage.


江端(の悪意の)意訳 ↓

Ebata's (malicious) translation ↓

(1) でもね、異性愛者と同性愛者の違いは、つまるところ「性的指向の差異」だけで、本人達に責任はないよね?

(1) But, the only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is "difference in sexual orientation", and they are not responsible for it, right?

(2) これを結婚という制度の利益受益者として、"1"か"0"の2つしかないように扱うって、どうよ?

(2) Isn't it strange that we treat this as a beneficiary of the institution of marriage, as if there are only two choices, "1" or "0"?



In addition to these circumstances, and in light of the fact that there was no judicial decision on the constitutionality of the lack of a system for same-sex marriage, it must be said that it was not easy for the Diet to immediately recognize that this provision was in violation of Article 14, Section 1 of the Constitution.


江端(の悪意の)意訳 ↓

Ebata's (malicious) translation ↓


(1) I think it's a bit pitiful for the Diet to unilaterally assume that 'the Diet is at fault' under such circumstances.



As described above, the Court finds that there is no reason for any of the plaintiffs' claims.


江端(の悪意の)意訳 ↓

Ebata's (malicious) translation ↓


(1) Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages under the State Redress Law is dismissed.


―― あれ? この裁判、原告の敗訴?

"Huh? The plaintiff lost this case?"


We might be able to read it as above.


However, a (final) judgment takes effect from the entire text of the judgment.


In this judgment, this part of the judgment is very important.



The refusal to provide homosexuals with the legal means to enjoy even some of the legal effects of marriage is beyond the discretion of the legislature, and to that extent violates Article 14, Section 1 (equality under the law) of the Constitution.



It is important to note that the Sapporo District Court declared that the above state of affairs, where there are only two options, "1" or "0," is a violation of the Constitution.



I think that this ruling has not been finalized yet.


Even if the court decision is finalized with this content, if the government continues to fail to enforce the law on same-sex marriage and the system, the "negligence of the Diet" will be recognized, and every lawsuit after it is finalized will result in a decision subject to the State Compensation Law.


If this is the case, the plaintiff can decide that it would be better to let the judgment stand without filing an appeal.


On the other hand, the defendant that won the case, the "State," should not be able to appeal to the higher court.


However, in this ruling, the Sapporo District Court did not find any violation of Article 13 (respect (dignity) of the individual, the right to pursue happiness and public welfare) and Article 24 (freedom to form family relationships and equality between men and women) of the Constitution.


I haven't been able to follow up on how this trial is going to go (I'm working on it).


I will let you know when I know more.


Posted by ebata