We would like to inform you of the third oral argument hearing (scheduled to conclude) in the appeal trial of the "Freedom to Marry for All" Tokyo First Lawsuit.

In the Tokyo First Lawsuit, "Freedom of Marriage for All," the first instance trial handed down a ruling of unconstitutionality on November 30, 2022, pointing out a violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, and the case is currently under review in the appeal court.

The third hearing will be the last hearing for the appeal court to hear the case and the date of the verdict will be decided.

Your support in various forms, such as attending court hearings, participating in and viewing court report meetings, and posting on social media, will help us. We appreciate your continued support.

The third meeting date and report session schedule are as follows:

[Tokyo First Lawsuit (Appeals)]

Third Oral Argument Date

Date and time: Friday, April 26, 2024, 10:30 a.m.

Venue: Tokyo High Court, Courtroom 101

Case number: Tokyo High Court, Reiwa 5 (Ne) No. 292

* It is expected that spectator tickets will be distributed. On the day of the hearing, a lottery for spectator tickets will be distributed at the Tokyo High Court. For more information, please check the court's website here .

[Date Reporting Session]

Date and time: Friday, April 26, 2023, 12:30 p.m.

Venue: Toranomon Hall

Suishin Koei Building 2F, 1-9-5 Nishi-Shinbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo

Nearest station: 3 minutes walk from Toranomon Station on the Tokyo Metro Ginza Line

3 minutes walk from Uchisaiwaicho Station on the Toei Mita Line

8 minutes walk from JR Yamanote Line "Shinbashi" station

We also plan to stream the video on YouTube. The streaming URL is as follows:

Youtube live streaming URL https://youtube.com/live/jOa89rmTAVM

Subtitle distribution URL https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84676861484?pwd=Rk5NMVU3TlRxcm50bGhFeDNOUEVpQT09

■The latest information on the Tokyo lawsuit "Freedom to Marry for All" will be posted on the official Tokyo Bar Association account on X (formerly Twitter) !

■Court documents, opinion statements, etc. are also made public here.

⇒ CALL4 case site

This is a notice from the Tokyo Bar Team.

Regarding the ``Freedom of Marriage for All'' Tokyo Second Litigation, the first instance judgment (hereinafter referred to as the ``Judgment'') was handed down at the Tokyo District Court on March 14, 2024. We would like to inform you that the plaintiffs filed an appeal against this judgment on March 27 of the same year.

1 Grounds for appeal

In this judgment, the Tokyo District Court stated, ``The provisions of this case do not recognize marriage between same-sex couples, etc., and do not allow same-sex couples, etc. to enjoy legal benefits similar to those of marriage, or to social The reason why there is no system in place to allow same-sex couples to enjoy the benefits of notarization is that same-sex couples cannot enjoy the important personal interest of living a life consistent with their gender identity and sexual orientation. It is nothing short of depriving same-sex couples, etc.'' It cannot be recognized that there is such a thing, and it is in violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.''

Based on the results of personal examinations and witness examinations, the court found that legally same-sex couples form an irreplaceable family relationship just like legally opposite-sex couples. , the decision to determine that the current provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Register Act, which do not legally recognize marriage for same-sex couples, and the lack of legislation regarding legal systems such as marriage, are unconstitutional, which is highly commendable.

However, because the details of the system design are left to the discretion of the Diet, the lack of these provisions or any legislation at this stage could immediately be considered a violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. Although it is recognized that the social situation has become such that it cannot be taken for granted that marriage is a legal system that should be legally recognized only for opposite-sex couples, at this stage the Constitution It is completely acceptable that Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the same law were not found to have been violated, as it cannot be said that Article 1 requires legal guarantee of marriage for same-sex couples. It's not a thing.

Until now, the Tokyo legal team has argued that sexual minorities such as transgenders and homosexuals and cisgender heterosexuals have the same personal value, and that the reality of the lives of legally same-sex couples is different from that of legally opposite-sex couples. I have repeatedly argued and proven that there is no legal basis for excluding same-sex couples from marriage because there is no difference between the two. Nevertheless, forcing legally same-sex couples into a system different from the current marriage system, such as a ``legal system similar to the current marriage system,'' stigmatizes legally same-sex couples as ``second-class citizens.'' It only serves to strengthen the status quo, which undermines the dignity of individuals.

This judgment does not accurately understand the concept of "individual dignity," and it must be said that the court's decision to not declare the provisions in question to be unconstitutional was unjust.

Therefore, in order to truly realize marriage equality, Tokyo Lawyers filed an appeal against this judgment on March 27, 2024.

2 Information on the appellant

The appellants are a total of eight plaintiffs in the Tokyo secondary lawsuit entitled "Freedom of Marriage for All": Ms. Hatogai, Mr. Kawachi, Mr. Yamagata, Mr. Kei, Mr. Fujii, Mr. Fukuda, Mr. Takeda, and Mr. Hitotsubashi. It's a name.

3 Appeal press conference

After the appeal, we held a press conference at the Judicial Press Club, and the appellants, Mr. Hatogai and Mr. Yamagata, spoke about their thoughts on the appeal. In addition, the attorney read the comments of the appellants, Mr. Kawachi, Mr. Kei, Mr. Fujii, Mr. Fukuda, Mr. Takeda, and Mr. Hitotsubashi on their behalf.

4 Future plans

Details have not been decided at this time. We will contact you again once the details are decided.

The battle will now move to the Tokyo High Court, but the appellant and his defense team will do their best to have the high court hand down a favorable verdict. We ask for your continued support during the appeal hearing.

that's all

"Freedom to Marry for Everyone" This is a notice from the Tokyo Bar Association.

On March 14, 2024, the final district court judgment was handed down in the second Tokyo lawsuit entitled "Freedom to Marry for All," and we are pleased to report that we obtained the fifth unconstitutional judgment. .

Live broadcast of flag display: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG_a0UT5GuM

<Summary of judgment delivery date>

Date and time: March 14, 2024, 10:30 a.m.

Venue: Tokyo District Court Courtroom 103

Judges: Chief Judge Tomoyuki Hizawa, Judge Kenji Kaneda, Judge Ryohei Kawamoto

(Civil Affairs 44th Department A Council 1A Section)

Attendance: 8 plaintiffs, plaintiffs and other litigation attorneys, defendant country designated representative

<Summary of this judgment>

In the Tokyo secondary lawsuit, eight plaintiffs representing a variety of sexualities, including transgender, homosexual, and pansexual, argued that, based on five previous district court decisions, there is no legal system in place to protect same-sex couples as family members. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the provisions in this case do not legally recognize marriage for same-sex couples, which violates Article 24, Paragraph 1, Article 24, Paragraph 2, and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

This judgment sets out the provisions in this case and the establishment of a system that will allow same-sex couples to enjoy legal benefits similar to those of marriage, and to enjoy the social benefits of notarization. The Constitution concluded that the lack of legislation violates Article 24, Section 2 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the court did not go so far as to rule that the fact that the provisions in this case do not legally recognize marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

○Summary of the judgment

https://www.call4.jp/file/pdf/202403/9fc15bba1300f92c143c948a9e210481.pdf

○Full text of the judgment

https://www.call4.jp/file/pdf/202403/2c62a09d6fb3aea49b744ce0bc02bef7.pdf

<Significance of this judgment>

This judgment is the fifth unconstitutional judgment in the lawsuit and district court ruling on the "freedom of marriage for all," and the same-sex couples enjoy the same legal benefits as those of marriage under the provisions of this case and the law. The Tokyo This judgment follows a series of decisions by the District Court (first level), Nagoya District Court, and Fukuoka District Court.

The judgment also states that living a life in accordance with one's gender identity and sexual orientation is an "irreplaceable right" rooted in important personal interests, and also states that legally speaking, marriage is a right for same-sex couples. It clearly points out that enjoying the essence of sex is an important personal interest, and the provisions in this case do not legally recognize marriage between same-sex couples, nor do they provide any other system for enjoying the benefits. The court also held that this legally deprives same-sex couples of the important personal interest of living a life consistent with their gender identity and sexual orientation.

This judgment sends a clear message to the Diet, the legislative body, that it is ``strongly expected'' to ``legalize marriage'' for same-sex couples in an appropriate manner.

On the other hand, this judgment did not go so far as to determine that the provisions in this case, which do not legally recognize marriage for same-sex couples, are unconstitutional. This is extremely unfortunate.

Regarding this judgment, the Tokyo Lawyers' Association for the "Freedom to Marry for All" lawsuit and the National Liaison Committee for Lawyers for the "Freedom for Marriage" Lawsuit have released a statement for more details. Please see here .

○Statement of defense team

https://www.call4.jp/file/pdf/202403/b79c0cc29277aaf4b023bb1709f37b4c.pdf

<Press conference/judgment report meeting>

After the verdict, a press conference and a meeting to report the verdict were held, which were also streamed live on YouTube.

Date and time: March 14, 2024 13:30~

Location: Kasumigaseki Plaza Hall

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpKBkUNJbRI (with archive)

After the meeting to report the verdict, everyone in the audience rejoiced together with the Sapporo High Court's unconstitutional ruling.

<At the end>

We will continue to work with you until the day when freedom and equality in marriage are truly realized and the dignity of sexual minorities is restored.

Lastly, all of the unconstitutional rulings, including this fifth unconstitutional ruling, would not have been possible without the efforts of our predecessors who have fought against discrimination and prejudice against sexual minorities, and without your support. . Thank you very much again.

that's all

March 25, 2024

“Freedom to Marry for Everyone” Hokkaido Litigation Lawyers

On March 14, 2024, the Third Civil Division of the Sapporo High Court ruled that the provisions regarding marriage in the Civil Code and the Family Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisions"), which do not provide for the recognition of same-sex marriages, We handed down a ground-breaking judgment stating that it violates Article 24 and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

However, according to media reports, even after receiving the above ruling, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida stated at the House of Councilors Budget Committee on the 15th of the same month that the recognition of same-sex marriage was "not envisaged under the constitution," and reiterated the government's previous position. The government has repeatedly given negative answers, saying, ``At the very least, not having a provision regarding same-sex marriage does not violate the Constitution.'' In addition, the prime minister said, ``At this stage, the judgment has not yet been finalized, and similar lawsuits are continuing in other courts, so we will continue to monitor the decisions in these lawsuits.'' It is said that he said.

On March 17, 2021, the Sapporo District Court handed down the first unconstitutional judgment that this provision violates Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, and since then, four district courts (Sapporo, Tokyo, Fukuoka, and Nagoya) excluding Osaka have Five courts have ruled that the provision in question or the absence of a system to legally protect relationships between same-sex couples is unconstitutional. Opposition parties have already submitted bills to the Diet that would legalize same-sex marriage.

Despite this, no progress has been made in the Diet toward enacting the law. The appellants and their defense team were greatly disappointed by the Prime Minister's continued negative response, no matter how many unconstitutional rulings he made. I have come to believe that even the High Court's judgment is insufficient to move the Diet and the government, and that we must seek the judgment of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the appellants have now decided to file an appeal and a petition for acceptance of the appeal with the Supreme Court.

The specific grounds for the appeal and the reasons for the petition for acceptance of the appeal will be discussed by the defense team, but the Supreme Court believes that the way to eliminate the constitutional violation of this provision is to make marriage the same for same-sex marriages as for opposite-sex marriages. We will seek an even stronger ruling on the unconstitutionality of the law, making it clear that there is no other option but to enact legislation that recognizes it, and clearly stating that the Diet's failure to legislate it is illegal.

To achieve this, your support is most important. In preparing for this appeal, I would like to once again express my gratitude to all those who have supported this trial thus far, and ask for your continued support and cooperation.

March 14, 2024

“Freedom to Marry for Everyone” Hokkaido Litigation Lawyers

“Freedom to Marry for All” Litigation National Liaison Association of Lawyers

1 Introduction

The Third Civil Division of the Sapporo High Court (Presiding Judge Kiyofumi Saito, Justice Masahiro Yoshikawa, and Chief Justice Yasuhiro Ito) today decided on the Hokkaido Lawsuit entitled "Freedom to Marry for All" (hereinafter referred to as the "Hokkaido Lawsuit"). In the appellate court, the Civil Code and the Family Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisions in this case") regarding marriage do not provide for the recognition of marriage between persons of the same sex (meaning persons of the same gender in legal terms; the same shall apply hereinafter). ruled that it violates Article 24 and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

Today's Sapporo High Court judgment is the first high court level to rule on the unconstitutionality of a series of ``freedom to marry for all'' lawsuits filed across the country. For the first time in previous rulings, the court ruled that this provision violates all of Article 24 of the Constitution, including paragraph 1, and that it does not provide any legal protection to same-sex couples; The court ruled that the fact that it is not recognized is in itself a violation of the Constitution (Article 24 of the Constitution, Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution).

2. Background leading to today’s High Court judgment

The "Freedom of Marriage for All" lawsuit was filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) who wish to marry a partner of the same sex. (Violation of Article 13 of the Constitution), (2) It creates discrimination without rational grounds between couples of the opposite sex (love) (Violation of Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution), (3) It cannot be recognized as reasonable as legislation regarding marriage and family. It is considered unconstitutional as it exceeds the scope of the Diet's discretion (violating Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution), and it is illegal for the Diet to fail to amend the provisions of laws that violate the Constitution. This is a lawsuit seeking compensation for the psychological damage suffered as a result of being unable to do so. A total of 35 plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in courts across the country (Sapporo, Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, and Fukuoka), including six plaintiffs (three couples) in the Hokkaido lawsuit.

As of this morning, five courts in four district courts (Sapporo, Tokyo, Fukuoka, and Nagoya) excluding Osaka have ruled that the lack of this provision or a system to legally protect relationships between same-sex couples is unconstitutional. I have expressed my judgment that there is.

Regarding the Hokkaido lawsuit, on March 17, 2021, the Sapporo District Court stated that the Diet does not believe that this provision does not provide homosexuals with a legal means to enjoy even a portion of the legal effects of marriage. This is the first time that the Diet has made an unconstitutional judgment that it violates Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution as it constitutes discriminatory treatment that exceeds the scope of its discretion and lacks a rational basis, but the Diet is responsible for failing to amend this provision. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Sapporo High Court.

3 Today's Sapporo High Court Judgment

Today's Sapporo High Court judgment ruled that the various provisions regarding marriage in the Civil Code and Family Registration Law (the provisions in question) violate Article 24 and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

First, the judgment stated that Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution stipulates the freedom of marriage between persons, and the purpose is to guarantee same-sex marriages to the same extent as opposite-sex marriages. Ta. Furthermore, since this provision stipulates only marriage between opposite sexes, does not permit marriage between same sexes, and does not prescribe any alternative measures, it is based on the dignity of the individual, and sexual orientation and same sex He pointed out that the system lacks rationality in light of the provisions of Article 24 of the Constitution, which is understood to guarantee the freedom of marriage, and that, at least for now, it has reached a state where it is beyond the scope of the Diet's legislative discretion.

Furthermore, in determining the violation of Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, this judgment takes into account that the Diet has legislative discretion, and even though the provision in question stipulates marriage for heterosexual couples, Not allowing same-sex couples to marry currently lacks a rational basis, and the separate treatment stipulated in this provision amounts to discriminatory treatment, and it also violates the same paragraph.

As mentioned above, the judgment determined that the provision in question violates Article 24 and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, but on the other hand, it was clear that it violated the provisions of the Constitution during debates in the Diet and judicial proceedings. Therefore, it could not be said that the fact that the Diet had not amended or abolished this provision was illegal under the State Reparation Act. However, he also told the Diet that ``This is fundamentally a matter related to the dignity of the individual, and as an urgent issue, we must urgently take measures to address the loss of one's own existence. It is hoped that serious discussions and responses will be taken as soon as possible, including applying the system."

4 Evaluation of defense team

This judgment is groundbreaking in that it directly declares that the provision in question is unconstitutional.

In particular, this judgment is extremely groundbreaking in that it determines that Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution provides for the freedom of marriage, and that same-sex marriages are guaranteed to the same extent as opposite-sex marriages. Furthermore, the provisions of this case do not permit same-sex marriage, and the court recognizes that not being able to receive institutional security for social life due to marriage is a situation in which the dignity of the individual is impaired. It is highly commendable that the government asserts that the provision lacks rationality in light of the provisions of Article 24 of the Constitution, and that it is already beyond the scope of the Diet's legislative discretion.

Not only do homosexuals not enjoy the important legal effects of marriage, they are treated by society as inferior to heterosexuals, and their dignity is undermined on a daily basis. On the other hand, they have been instilled with a sense of inferiority by being treated by society as inferior to heterosexual men. I would like to point out that the only way to correct this situation is to allow homosexuals the same access to the marriage system as heterosexuals.

In addition, today's ruling continued from the original court's decision in that it cannot be said that the Diet's failure to amend or repeal the provisions in question is illegal under the National Reparations Act, but this merely allows the unconstitutional state to remain as it is. isn't it. This judgment points out that stipulating same-sex marriage does not mean asking the people to unify their opinions and evaluations, and states that it is desirable to have serious discussions and responses as soon as possible as an urgent issue. ing. I would like to reiterate that this shows that there is no time left for legal reform.

The government should take seriously this judgment that found this provision to be unconstitutional, and immediately begin to revise the current civil law and family register law, which are considered to be contrary to the constitution, and promptly amend the law to allow marriage between same-sex couples. It should be realized.

[Judgment date]

Date and time: March 15, 2024 from 15:00 to 15:30

Venue: Sapporo High Court Courtroom No. 802

Judges: Chief Judge Kiyofumi Saito, Judge Masahiro Yoshikawa, Judge Yasuhiro Ito

The Sapporo High Court (Appellate Court) judgment date for the Hokkaido lawsuit, "Freedom of Marriage for All," was held on March 14th, White Day!

The "Freedom to Marry for All" lawsuit began on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2019, when a lawsuit was filed in four district courts in Hokkaido (Sapporo), Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka.

The Hokkaido lawsuit started at the Sapporo District Court (first instance) on Valentine's Day and reached its goal at the Sapporo High Court (appellate court) on White Day.

The result is...!

In order to provide an easy-to-understand explanation to the appellants and their supporters who rushed to the hearing seats, Presiding Judge Kiyofumi Saito did not read out the summary of the judgment verbatim, but rather took his time reading each word, as if savoring the words. He handed down the verdict in gentle and easy-to-understand terms.

The conclusion was that although the claim for damages was dismissed, the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Register Act that do not recognize marriage between persons of the same sex violate Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, and Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. In other words, it was an extremely ground-breaking statement that declared it ``unconstitutional''!

The judgment was one in which Presiding Judge Kiyofumi Saito, Judge Masahiro Yoshikawa, and Judge Yasuhiro Ito listened to the voices of the parties and supported them.

For details of the judgment, please read the summary of the judgment and the written judgment , but to summarize its contents...

・Sexual orientation is an innate tendency, and while there is no fundamental reason for society to treat heterosexuals and homosexuals differently, at the same time, from the individual's perspective, people are respected as individuals. It is the basis, a symbol of the individual's personality, and can constitute a part of the content of moral rights.

・Freedom of sexual orientation and same-sex marriage should be taken into account when examining legislative discretion under Article 24 of the Constitution, as important legal interests that can constitute part of the personal rights guaranteed as constitutional rights.

・Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution includes the purpose of defining marriage as a free association between people, and includes not only marriage between opposite sexes but also marriage between same sexes. It should be considered that the protection is provided to the same extent as in the case of

・Homosexuals not only suffer from disadvantages in social life due to not being able to get married, and the severity of the disadvantages is significant, but they also feel a sense of loss of identity and are unable to feel the significance of their existence. Such situations have resulted in the loss of the personality that constitutes the dignity of individuals.

・There are no indications that there will be any disadvantages or harm if same-sex marriage is established.

・Many countries allow same-sex marriage, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee has pointed out that same-sex marriage should be possible, and a survey of citizens shows that more than half of the people approve of same-sex marriage. ing

・Although local governments have implemented a partnership recognition system, it has no legal effect, and it cannot be said that the disadvantages caused by homosexuals not being able to marry have been eliminated.

・Given the disadvantages and social conditions that homosexuals face, the provisions of the Civil Code and Family Register Act that do not recognize same-sex marriage are, at least at present, beyond the scope of the Diet's legislative discretion, and are subject to Article 24 of the Constitution. violate

・Freedom of sexual orientation and marriage is an important legal interest, but homosexuals cannot marry someone of the same sex and cannot receive the institutional security of marriage, so they face significant disadvantages in various situations. is recieving

・Although the Diet has legislative discretion, the fact that the Civil Code and Family Registration Act do not allow homosexuals to marry which is permitted to heterosexuals currently lacks a rational basis and is considered discriminatory. The provisions of the Civil Code and Family Register Act that do not recognize same-sex marriages violate Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

As mentioned above, the Sapporo High Court's ruling was a wonderful one that fully considered the disadvantages of parties who want to get married, just like heterosexual people!

In the courtroom, many people, including the appellant, his defense team, and supporters in the audience, listened carefully to Presiding Judge Saito's words with tears in his eyes.

[Flag out]

After the deadline for passing the judgment, the appellants, their lawyers, and their supporters gathered in front of the Sapporo High Court and held up a flag that read, "Even the High Court is unconstitutional! Let's legislate it as soon as possible." There was a huge round of applause from the audience and members of the press!

【Press conference】

Date and time: March 14, 2024, 16:30-18:00

Location: Sapporo View Hotel Odori Park

After the flag display, a press conference was held for members of the media and supporters.

At the press conference, lawyer Fumiyasu Tsunamori explained the Sapporo High Court's judgment, lawyer Hiromi Minagawa released a statement from the defense team in response to the Sapporo High Court's judgment, and the appellant, Eri Nakatani, spoke with tears in her eyes. He talked about his thoughts and said with a smile, ``The content of the ruling definitely put a lot of pressure on the legislature, because it clearly stated that we should have a proper discussion and put the law in place.''

There were so many people who came to the press conference that we couldn't fit into the venue.

I'm really thankful to you!

[Delivery of due date report]

Date and time: March 14, 2024, 19:30-20:30

After the press conference, we carried out the usual distribution of due date reports.

Teruko Mitsushima, who serves as the deputy executive committee chairperson of Hokkaido Rainbow Pride, served as the moderator for the delivery of the due date report!

During the due date report distribution, attorney Fumiyasu Tsunamori explained the contents of the Sapporo High Court judgment, and Eri Nakatani, Mr. C, Ryosuke Kunimi, and Takashi talked about their joy at receiving the Sapporo High Court judgment.

We also received messages of congratulations from the plaintiffs in the Tokyo Secondary Litigation ``Freedom of Marriage for All'' and attorney Ryu Min-hee of Marriage for All Korea, which has started activities with the aim of realizing same-sex marriage litigation in South Korea. I did.

You can watch the due date report distribution via archive distribution, so please take a look!

Click here for the URL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1x12iBkjpw

【About the future】

The Sapporo High Court made an excellent decision in the Hokkaido lawsuit entitled "Freedom of Marriage for All."

However, the Japanese government still does not make any concrete moves toward realizing same-sex marriage.

Therefore, we have filed an appeal today in order to ensure concrete progress toward the realization of same-sex marriage.

Please see the defense team's statement for the reasons for the appeal.

The scene moves to the Supreme Court.

It will still take some time, but we will continue to do our best to bring the freedom of marriage to everyone, so we appreciate your continued support.

“Freedom to Marry for All” Aichi Litigation Appeal Tribunal 2nd Date Report

Date and time: February 29, 2024 11:00

Location: Nagoya High Court Courtroom 1

Judges: Presiding Judge Nobuhiro Katada, Judge Makiko Yamamoto, Judge Tetsuji Ohara

Contents:

1 Confirmation of submitted documents and evidence

By the previous deadline, the appellee (defendant of the first instance, state) had submitted a written answer to the appeal, rebutting the Nagoya District Court judgment and the claims of the appellant (plaintiff of the first instance). The appellant filed a motion for clarification and questioned the contents of the written answer.

After the previous deadline, the appellee filed a response to the appellant's motion for clarification. The appellant submitted a written statement rebutting the state's claims based on the written response.

In addition, the appellant submitted a written argument based on district court judgments in five regions that have already handed down the freedom of marriage to all people in lawsuits, and a written argument regarding the social circumstances of same-sex couples raising children. did.

2 Opinion statement

Attorneys Yoko Mizutani and Kaoru Sunahara from the defense team each made statements regarding the gist of the appellant's written statement.

In the summary statement, among the counterarguments to the government's response and written responses, it specifically stated that ``same-sex couples do not have social recognition unlike opposite-sex couples'' and ``Whether or not to recognize same-sex couples as legal marriages depends on the fundamentals of society. Arguments include, "This is an issue that touches on the basics of national life," "Contracts and wills can have the same legal effect as marriage," and "The district court decision does not clarify the definition of 'family' in Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution." I gave a speech against the.

First, the government argued that same-sex couples lack social recognition, based on the historical background of the long-standing system of marriage between men and women. In response, the appellant criticized that the state's argument was akin to continuing to exclude same-sex couples because it had excluded same-sex couples up until now, and that this attitude itself was discriminatory. Furthermore, although it can be said that approval already exists when looking at the actual social situation, the Supreme Court's tendency is to make decisions based on such social changes, and if there are inappropriate customs or norms that cause inequality, it is difficult to deal with them. He argued that it was the country's responsibility.

Second, regarding the legal marriage system for same-sex couples, the government has stated that it is an extremely important issue that touches on the nature of the family in our country and, by extension, the very foundations of society. It is necessary to carefully consider and make a decision as to whether this will happen or not.'' In response to this argument, there is a need to think objectively and concretely about the impact on society, as stirring up a sense of crisis about minorities in the abstract may stir up discrimination within society. He countered that this was something that the Supreme Court justices had also pointed out. He also countered that even if adjustments were to be made to the family registration system and laws regarding parent-child relationships, it would be the state's responsibility to make those adjustments, and there was no reason to justify the current situation.

Third, the government can enjoy the same legal effects as legal marriage through other systems, as some of the legal effects determined by the civil law can be enjoyed through contracts and wills, so the disadvantages can be alleviated by using other systems. He also claimed. In response to this, there are many important legal systems other than the civil law, and the de facto effects of legal marriage are also important (the district court's judgment states that the mental and psychological effects and social effects are also very important). ), the effects under the civil law are only partially achieved, and it imposes a large financial, psychological, and time burden, so the effects of other systems are not at all the same as the effects of legal marriage. I argued that it was not the same thing.

Finally, the government maintained that the dictionary definition of "family" only includes blood relations and spouses. In response, the appellant argued that same-sex couples living as fufu are recognized in society as a family. He also argued that the scope of human rights should be interpreted from the perspective of individual dignity, something that the Supreme Court justices had also pointed out.

In addition, we made detailed claims regarding the reality of same-sex couples raising children. The fact that there are already many sexual minorities who give birth and raise children in society, that it is scientifically proven that the gender or sexual orientation of the parents does not in itself affect the child's development, and that the child's welfare is important. He argued that protection for same-sex couples is necessary from the perspective of gender equality, and that although society has already recognized and is trying to protect same-sex couples and their children as a form of family, the law has not kept up. did.

3 Confirmation of progress

The next hearing date is Thursday, June 27, 2024 at 11:00 a.m.

The appellant has submitted a written argument based on the Sapporo High Court judgment and the Tokyo District Court judgment, which is scheduled to be handed down on March 14th, and a written argument based on the opinions of academics in international human rights and constitutional law. Each of the appellants plans to submit written arguments that describe their individual circumstances after the conclusion of the district court.

The documents submitted by the defense team are published in Call 4's ` ` Lawsuit for the Freedom of Marriage for All (Same-Sex Marriage Litigation) .''

There are several high-profile rulings before the next court date.

On March 14th (Thursday), as mentioned above, there will be a Sapporo High Court decision and a Tokyo Second Litigation District Court decision that will protect the freedom of marriage for all.

On Tuesday, March 26th, from 3:00 p.m., the Supreme Court is scheduled to hand down a ruling in a case in which the question of whether same-sex partners should be included in benefits paid to the families of crime victims is scheduled to be handed down. Since the arguments necessary to change the judgment have been held, the district court and high court's judgments that same-sex partners are not eligible for benefits may be reconsidered. Please pay attention to this trial.

■Next due date

June 27, 2024 (Thursday) 11:00 (3rd oral argument)

Nagoya District Court No. 1

On this date, we held a viewing tour sponsored by our supporters! There were many people who came to watch the event for the first time, and in the end over 60 people came to watch the event.

Please note that you may need to go to the courthouse early next time to receive a numbered ticket. We will provide further information as soon as the situation is confirmed.

We are looking forward to seeing as many people as possible to attend the hearing so that we can fill all seats!

■Date report meeting

On the same day as the date, a date report session was held online from 7:00 pm, moderated by Juri An (co-representative of Nagoya Rainbow Pride).

First, in the first part, attorneys Yoko Mizutani and Kaoru Sunahara from the defense team reported on the exchanges at the second oral argument date of the appellate court and the contents of the written argument. In this report, we invited Mr. Takashi Kazama (NPO PROUD LIFE) as a guest for a question and answer session and an exchange of opinions regarding the content of the allegations and the future progress of the trial.

Next, in the second part, we invited Hiromi Minagawa of the Hokkaido Bar Association and Maiko Sato of the Tokyo Bar Association as guests for a talk session. We talked about the highlights of the Hokkaido lawsuit and the second Tokyo lawsuit, both of which will be decided on March 14th, as well as their thoughts on the rulings.

We also received a report from Naoya Matsumoto (Team.S@Toyota) about the listening tour that will be held for the first time.

We received many comments and messages of support from viewers regarding this date. thank you very much.

The debriefing session is an archived video on Youtube, so please take a look ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nqB7qtMLe4&t=1226s   ).

We will hold a report session from next time onwards, so even if you were not able to attend this time, please come and join us.

■I want to support the Aichi lawsuit even more! For those who

Thank you for your continued support of Aichi Litigation.

Your support is an encouragement to the plaintiffs and their defense team, whether it's by attending court hearings or reporting sessions, donating to Call4, or disseminating information about the lawsuit on social media.

Please also participate in related events.

On Friday, March 22nd, from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm, the Malifaux National Assembly (in-house assembly) will be held to deliver messages to members of the Diet. Members of local lawsuits are also scheduled to participate. In addition to participating locally, we will also be streaming on YouTube, so please join us (we plan to provide information in sign language and UD Talk).

Additionally, Tokyo Rainbow Pride will be held from April 19th (Friday) to 21st (Sunday), and Nagoya Rainbow Pride will be held on June 15th (Saturday). At Nagoya Rainbow Pride, Aichi Litigation Lawyers will also appear at Malifaux Base. Please join us as well.

Thank you for your continued support.

“Freedom to Marry for Everyone” Kyushu Lawsuit Fukuoka High Court 1st Trial Report

□Date and time: Monday, February 19, 2024 from 11:00 a.m. to around 11:45 a.m.

□Venue: Fukuoka High Court/District Court No. 101

□Judges: Judge Ken Okada, Judge Michie Sato, Judge Hiroshi Mitsumoto

□Content:

• The appellants (plaintiffs) submitted a letter of appeal, grounds for appeal (1) , (2) , (3) , and (4), and evidence.
• The appellee (defendant/state) has submitted an answer to the appeal and evidence.
• The four appellants and their attorney Goto gave their opinions.

First, Mr. Kosuke and Mr. Masahiro stood in court side by side, followed by Mr. Kozo , then Mr. Yuta , and finally Mr. Goto , who each presented their opinions to the court. The three judges looked straight at the appellants and listened to them without looking away.

□Next date: September 2, 2020, 2:30 p.m.

In the future, the appellant is expected to make additional arguments around the end of April 2020, and then the appellee and the state are expected to submit a counterargument around the end of July 2020.

Despite the bad weather due to the rain, we had as many people as usual. thank you. We cannot say anything yet, but there is a possibility that the next trial will conclude and be the last oral argument in the trial court, so we ask for your continued support.

Press conference/debriefing session

After the trial, a press conference and meeting to report the date was held at the Fukuoka Prefectural Bar Association. It was a fruitful meeting with the participation of many supporters and members of the press following the trial.

At the beginning, Attorneys Ishii and Mori explained the written claims submitted by both parties and the current situation, and then messages from plaintiffs Coco and Miko were read out.

Despite the current situation not progressing as expected, it was a message that showed a strong will: ``We will not give up and will persevere (while paying our taxes) to continue to spread the word.''

Yuta said that he was a little confused when the three high court judges he met for the first time ``didn't seem to move their eyebrows'' and wondered if they ``understood the dimension'', but added, ``I was able to express my feelings in my own words.'' This may be the last time (I will be able to convey my words directly), but I was able to convey what I wanted to convey.''

Speaking about the tearful scene in the courtroom, Kozo said, ``There were times when it was difficult to express my feelings and relationships with people close to me.'' However, in court,

Until the end, in his own words, he conveyed to the court what people were like through what had happened since the trial began - the death of an acquaintance and friend.

Kosuke and Masahiro appeared in court wearing matching looks. The aim is to make judges, who may not be aware of the existence of LGBTQ+ people around them, realize that ``it's not that there aren't people involved, it's just that they can't see them.'' It was something.

Mr. Kosuke told the court, ``Why can't we get married? Who, who, and why is the decision not to let us get married?'' These are the same words I used when I stood in court four years ago. He appealed to the court that although society has changed in the past four years, the legislature has not yet changed, and that it is the courts that can make the changes.

Masahiro said, ``I want my parents to say I'm glad they got married while they're still alive.'' ``This issue will only make more people happy, and no one will be unhappy.'' I want this to be legislated as soon as possible. ”, he directly appealed to the court and sent a message to society.

Tomikazu Goto, a lawyer who gave an opinion on his behalf, said that if society is wrong and one person is suffering, it is the courts, not the Diet, that can help them, and that is why judges should have become judges. . He said that he expressed his opinion in hopes of giving the judge courage.

This was followed by another explanation from Attorney Mori, an introduction to the Iwanami booklet ``Q&A for the legalization of same-sex marriage,'' and a question-and-answer session. During the question and answer session, topics such as changes in society since the start of the trial and the positive changes felt by the people involved in their daily lives were brought to light, highlighting the Legislature's unwillingness to change its attitude. We received warm messages of support from everyone at the venue, and it was a very fulfilling debriefing session.

Furthermore, on this day, the debriefing session was streamed live on YouTube starting at 7pm. In addition to the parties involved in the trial, Mie and Kayo, who were married at Kyushu Rainbow Pride 2023, also appeared as special guests, making it a very friendly and enjoyable debriefing session. Compared to the daytime, you can see a softer appearance that is probably closer to its normal appearance. Please take a look at the publicly available archives.

[First high court! ] Giving Freedom of Marriage to Everyone Kyushu Appeals Tribunal First Report Meeting 2024/2/19 (youtube.com)

The Hokkaido lawsuit for freedom of marriage for all is about to be handed down by the appellate court.
This is the first time in the country that a high court decision has been made.
This may be a historic ruling towards realizing the freedom of marriage, so if you are in Sapporo or the surrounding area, please come and watch it!

[Date and time]

Thursday, March 14, 2024 15:00-15:30 (scheduled)

【place】

Sapporo High Court/Courtroom No. 802

*You may need an attendance ticket to attend the hearing on the scheduled date.
Please check the Sapporo High Court website for information on issuance of hearing tickets.
https://www.courts.go.jp/app/botyokoufu_jp/list?id=13

[Due report meeting]

<Press conference>
Date and time: March 14, 2024 (Thursday) from around 16:30
Location: Sapporo View Hotel Odori Park 4th floor Sakura Room (8-chome Odori Nishi, Chuo-ku, Sapporo)
Note: The general public is welcome to participate, but as seats are limited, please forgive us if the event is full.
<Report distribution>
Date and time: March 14, 2024 (Thursday) 19:30~
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1x12iBkjpw
Content: The defense team will explain the content of the judgment, and the appellants (plaintiffs) will talk about their perceptions and thoughts on the judgment.

sorry.