"Freedom of Marriage for All" This is a notice from the Tokyo lawyers.

We would like to inform you that the 8th oral argument date for the second lawsuit in Tokyo, "Freedom of Marriage for All," has been held.

Date: May 25, 2023, from 14:00 to 14:40

Venue: Tokyo District Court No. 103 Courtroom

Judges: Presiding Judge Tomoyuki Tobisawa, Judge Kenji Kaneda, Judge Ryohei Kawamoto

(Section 1A, 44th Department of Civil Affairs)

Attendance: 5 plaintiffs, 17 attorneys for the plaintiff, 4 attorneys for the defendant

[Details of the 8th Oral Argument Date]

1 Plaintiff's opinion statement ( Click here for the full text of the opinion statement )

On this date, Mr. Fukuda, the plaintiff, made a second statement of opinion. In addition, this was the final opinion statement from the plaintiff in the first instance.

Mr. Fukuda talked about his experience since filing the second lawsuit, and his thoughts two years after filing the lawsuit. The judge told me that I am living as hard as I am. "I believe that the world will soon be one in which all Japanese people can pursue happiness through marriage," he said. He concluded his final statement by saying that

2 Opinion statement by the plaintiffs and their representatives ( Click here for the full text of the opinion statement )

(1) Plaintiffs' Opinion Statements Regarding Individual Circumstances Documents

Hojo, the attorney for the plaintiffs, expressed his opinion on how the individual circumstances of the plaintiffs should be taken into consideration when making a constitutional judgment.

In the first lawsuit in Tokyo, as a result of the court's sincere consideration of the results of the plaintiffs' individual circumstances, written statements, and interrogations, same-sex couples were legally excluded from marriage. Regarding the fact that they are receiving benefits, ""It is a serious threat and obstacle to the personal survival of homosexuals, and it cannot be said that there is a rational reason in light of individual dignity, and it is in violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution." In light of the heavy judgment that "there is one." He urged people to face their lives with sincerity and make constitutional judgments with pride as the last bastion of human rights.

(2) Statement of Opinion on Plaintiffs' 15th Brief ( Click here for the full text of the statement of opinion )

The plaintiffs' attorney, Miura, made an opinion statement on the plaintiffs' 15th memorandum, which supplemented the claim on Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution based on the judgment of the Tokyo First Lawsuit.

In its opinion, this lawsuit argues that a legally same-sex couple, who are social minorities, were excluded from the marriage system because of past erroneous knowledge, unfair prejudice, and discrimination, and had their relationship as marriage notarized socially. After stating that the lawsuit calls into question the unconstitutionality of the current legal system, which has no means of approval, the Tokyo First Lawsuit Judgment ``same-sex human bonding is the same as that of heterosexual couples. One of the grounds for this is that it is difficult to accept that ``marriage'' is socially approved." However, this judgment does not examine the possibility that past erroneous knowledge, prejudice and discrimination may be hidden in the background of "traditional values". I pointed out that there is a big problem with not considering the danger of allowing an interpretation that limits the pursuit without a rational reason.

(3) Statement of Opinion on Plaintiffs' 16th Brief ( Click here for the full text of the statement of opinion )

The attorney for the plaintiffs, Mr. Mizota, made an opinion statement on the 16th brief for the plaintiffs, which supplemented the claim on Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution based on the Tokyo First Lawsuit Judgment.

In the statement of opinion, in the examination of conformity to Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution in the judgment of the Tokyo First Lawsuit, legally same-sex couples could not enjoy "important personal benefits related to personal dignity" and "significant damage to personal survival." There is no evidence that consideration is given to the fact that "threats and obstacles" are occurring, and there is no consideration of whether there is a rational basis for preventing legally same-sex couples from enjoying the various legal effects arising from marriage. Tokyo Ichiji After pointing out the problem of distinguishing between Article 24, Paragraph 2 and Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which the lawsuit judgment itself judged unconstitutional, the subject of the examination of constitutional conformity was changed, and then the ``nature of the matter'' in this case was pointed out. He pointed out that if a substantive examination was conducted, it would be clear that the different handling for each case would violate Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

(4) Statement of Opinion on Plaintiffs' 17th Brief ( Click here for the full text of the statement of opinion )

The attorney for the plaintiffs, Uesugi, stated his opinion on the plaintiffs' 17th memorandum, which supplemented the claim on Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution based on the judgment of the Tokyo First Lawsuit.

In the statement of opinion, while the Tokyo First Lawsuit Judgment was found to be unconstitutional, stating that it "is in violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution," it was argued that there are various ways to resolve the unconstitutionality, and that legally the same sex Concerning the conclusion that the Provisions, which do not recognize the marriage of couples, are not unconstitutional, in Japan, the legal system for becoming a partner and a family is already marriage, and there is only marriage, and legally same-sex couples are legally prohibited. He points out that the reason why people cannot become a family is that they are undoubtedly excluded from the marriage system, and that the lack of a "legal system for becoming a partner and a family" is a problem in switching points of contention. However, the court should face up to the fact that the “traditional” view of marriage has been built on the pain of countless sexual minorities, and should continue to hand over the history of pain to the current and future sexual minorities living in this country. However, the Constitution, which is based on the principle of individual dignity, does not allow it. said to do

3 Submission of each document ( Click here for the URL link where each document is posted )

Between the previous date and the current date, the plaintiffs submitted the 14th to 25th briefs (the 18th to 25th are the plaintiff's individual claim documents), the summary of Mr. Fukuda's opinion statement, and the summary of the opinion statement of the plaintiff's attorneys. Defendant filed the 6th brief and each made a statement at the due date. In addition, between the previous date and the current date, the plaintiffs submitted Evidence Statements 15-18, A347-371, and written statements from the plaintiffs.

4 Future plans

The court has designated the following two dates as a schedule for the proceedings of the proceedings.

In addition, it was decided to discuss the future human identification plan (adjustment of interrogation schedule, etc.) at the next proceedings meeting.

• June 2, 2023 Date of proceedings discussion (procedures not open to the public/observation not possible)

• September 28, 2022, 2:00 p.m.

Date of the 9th Oral Argument

[Debriefing session]

A hybrid date briefing session was held on YouTube and in real life, and was broadcast live (with archive).

Date and time: May 25, 2023, 3:40 p.m.

Delivery URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ymcxkk3-Fg

 Speakers: Ms. Fukuda (plaintiff), Ms. Fujii (plaintiff), Mr. Sawasaki, Mr. Fujii, Ms. Hojo, Ms. Kumazawa (moderator)

"Freedom of Marriage for All" This is a notice regarding the 2nd lawsuit in Tokyo and the 8th date.

On May 25, 2023 (Thursday), the date for oral arguments for the second lawsuit in Tokyo has arrived.

This time, the eighth date, the plaintiff, Rie Fukuda, is scheduled to state her opinion (under coordination with the court).

In addition, I will state my opinion on the documents submitted by the agent by this date.

In addition, from 15:30 on the day of the event, a date report meeting will be held both at the venue and online.

Your support in various ways, such as attending court hearings, participating in online debriefing sessions, and posting on SNS, will be our strength. Thank you for your continued support.

[Date of the 8th Oral Argument]

Date: Thursday, May 25, 2023, 14:00

Place: Tokyo District Court Law No. 103

Case number: Tokyo District Court 2020 (Wa) No. 7645

*Mr. Fukuda, the plaintiff, and his attorney are scheduled to state their opinions on this date. (Under coordination with the court)

Attendance ticket distribution: Yes

* On the day of the event, lottery tickets for the hearing will be distributed at the Tokyo District Court. Please check the court website for details.

[Debriefing session]

From 15:30 on the day of the event, we will hold a date report meeting both at the venue and online! Please join us!

Date: May 25, 2023 (Thursday) 15:30-16:15

Venue: Toranomon Hall

Address: 1-9-5 Nishi-Shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo Suishinkoei Building 2F

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

3-minute walk from Uchisaiwaicho Station on the Toei Subway Mita Line

8 minutes walk from JR Yamanote Line "Shimbashi" station

Online: Simultaneous distribution on Marifor Channel

■ "Freedom to Marry for All" The latest information on the Tokyo Lawsuit is posted on the Tokyo Lawyers' twitter as needed!

■Court materials, opinion statements, etc. are available here.

⇒ CALL4 case site

sorry..

Sorry

"Freedom of Marriage for All" This is a notice from the Tokyo lawyers.

We would like to inform you that the 7th oral argument date for the second lawsuit in Tokyo, "Freedom of Marriage for All," has been held.

Date: January 26, 2023, from 14:00 to 14:35

Venue: Tokyo District Court No. 103 Courtroom

Judges: Presiding Judge Tomoyuki Tobisawa, Judge Kenji Kaneda, Judge Ryohei Kawamoto

(Section 1A, 44th Department of Civil Affairs)

Attendance: 8 plaintiffs, 19 attorneys for the plaintiff, 4 attorneys for the defendant

[Details of the 7th Oral Argument Date]

1 Plaintiff's opinion statement ( Click here for the full text of the opinion statement)

On this day, the plaintiff, Mr. Kay, explained why Mr. Kay, who is a closet, stood in court as a plaintiff, saying, "I don't want to let the history we have built with our partners never happen without anyone knowing." I want people to know the existence of the closet, and I want them to think about why the situation where they have no choice but to disguise themselves to match the majority is maintained.” In addition, I strongly hope that the era of false identity and rejection by others based on sexual orientation and gender identity will end, and that freedom of marriage will be recognized for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Kei said that he believes that sexual minorities will eventually cease to be a special entity if they are allowed to do so, and for that reason he hopes for the realization of marriage equality rather than special measures such as the partnership system. I have informed the judge.

2 Opinion statements by plaintiffs and their representatives

(1) Statement of Opinion on Plaintiffs' 12th Brief ( Click here for the full text of the statement of opinion)

Nagano, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said that the Constitution calls for a system in which all people are respected as individuals (the first part of Article 13 and Article 24, Paragraph 2), and legal same-sex marriage is recognized. The current system of marriage, which excludes homosexuals and transgender people who wish to marry legally the same sex, cannot be said to be a marriage system in which all people are respected as individuals, and it is clearly inconsistent with the Constitution. I said something.

(2) Statement of Opinion on Plaintiffs' 13th Brief ( Click here for the full text of the statement of opinion)

According to the plaintiffs' attorney, Handa, the plaintiffs' 13th memorandum states that the purpose of marriage is "to give legal protection to a relationship in which one man and one woman live together while bearing and raising children." The recognition of facts that is the premise of the government's assertion is clearly wrong in light of the specific episodes and survey results that there are legally same-sex couples who have given birth and are raising children. He stated that the lack of recognition of the marriage system for couples poses a serious obstacle in terms of the welfare of children.

(3) Statement of Opinion on Plaintiffs' 14th Brief ( Click here for the full text of the statement of opinion)

Based on the interpretation that Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution does not guarantee freedom of marriage between persons of the same sex legally, the plaintiffs' attorney, Fujii, logically inevitably concludes that the legislative body according to Article 24, Paragraph 2. He pointed out that the defendant's allegation that the target of the request and guidelines to the law is also limited to personal bonding relationships between the opposite sex under the law is incorrect.

In addition, (1) the interpretation of Article 24 as a whole should be based on paragraph 2 of Article 24, (2) the interpretation of Article 24 as a whole should be consistent with the principle of "respect for individuals", and (3) Considering that there is no difference between cisgender heterosexuals and other people in terms of the value of a person as an individual and the value of a communal life based on sincere intentions, the interpretation should be based on Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. He stated that the entire article should be interpreted as a provision that legally guarantees the right to marry between same-sex couples.

3 Submission of each document ( Click here for the URL link where each document is posted)

Between the previous date and the current date, the plaintiffs submitted the 12th to 14th briefs, the summary of Mr. Kay's opinion statement, and the summary of the opinion statement of the plaintiff's attorneys, and the defendant submitted the fifth brief. I made a statement on each date. In addition, between the previous date and the current date, the plaintiffs submitted Evidence Explanations 12-14 and A248-360, and the Defendant submitted the Defendant's Evidence Explanations (3), Otsu 30 and 31, respectively.

4 Future plans

The court has designated the following two dates as a schedule for the proceedings of the proceedings.

• January 31, 2023 Date of proceedings discussion (procedures not open to the public/observation not possible)

• May 25, 2022, 2:00 p.m.- 8th oral argument date (procedures open to the public/observation possible)

[Debriefing session]

A hybrid date briefing session was held on YouTube and in real life, and was broadcast live (with archive).

Date: January 26, 2023, 3:30 p.m.

Delivery URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmQ6lzDF_DQ

Speakers: Kei (plaintiff), Attorney Nagano, Attorney Fujii, Attorney Handa, Attorney Yu Nakamura, Attorney Yuhara (moderator)

"Freedom of Marriage for All" This is a notice regarding the 2nd lawsuit and the 7th date of the Tokyo lawsuit.

The 7th trial will be held on Thursday, January 26, 2023.

This time, which is the 7th date, the plaintiff, Mr. Kay, is scheduled to state his opinion.

In addition, representatives Nagano, Fujii, and Handa will state their opinions on the documents submitted by this date.

In addition, from 15:30 on the day of the event, a date report meeting will be held both at the venue and online.

Your support in various ways, such as attending court hearings, participating in online debriefing sessions, and posting on SNS, will be our strength. Thank you for your continued support.

[Date of the 7th Oral Argument]

Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023, 14:00

Venue: Tokyo District Court No. 103 Courtroom

Case number: Tokyo District Court 2020 (Wa) No. 7645

*Mr. Kay, the plaintiff, and his attorney will state their opinions on this date.

Attendance ticket distribution: Yes

* On the day of the event, lottery tickets for the hearing will be distributed at the Tokyo District Court. Please check the court website for details.

[Debriefing session]

From 15:30 on the day of the event, we will hold a date report meeting both at the venue and online! Please join us!

Date: January 26, 2023 (Thursday) 15:30-16:15

Venue: Toranomon Hall

Address: 1-9-5 Nishi-Shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo Suishinkoei Building 2F

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

3-minute walk from Uchisaiwaicho Station on the Toei Subway Mita Line

8 minutes walk from JR Yamanote Line "Shimbashi" station

Online: Simultaneous distribution on Marifor Channel

■ "Freedom to Marry for All" The latest information on the Tokyo Lawsuit is posted on the Tokyo Lawyers' twitter as needed!

■Court materials, opinion statements, etc. are available here.

⇒ CALL4 case site

<For those who wish to attend the trial>

・Please wear a non-woven mask on the day.

・Please refrain from coming to the office if you have a fever of 37°C or higher or if you are not feeling well.

・Unfortunately, for those who were unable to attend the meeting, please watch the video of the meeting on Youtube.

We apologize for any inconvenience, but we ask for your understanding and cooperation in order to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus infection.

Sorry.

sorry.

This is a notice from the Tokyo Lawyers.

Regarding the “Freedom of Marriage for All” Tokyo First Lawsuit, the Tokyo District Court handed down the judgment of the first instance on November 30, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Decision”). The plaintiffs filed an appeal against this ruling on December 13, 2013.

1 Grounds for appeal

In this ruling, the Tokyo District Court stated, ``Under current law, the absence of a legal system for homosexuals to become partners and families is a serious threat and obstacle to the personal survival of homosexuals, and in light of individual dignity. It cannot be said that there is a reasonable reason for this, and it is in violation of Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution." It is highly commendable that the court took seriously the earnest voices of the plaintiffs, including the results of the interrogation, and determined that the current law was unconstitutional.

However, on the other hand, the ruling also stated that "marriage" in Article 24 of the Constitution cannot be interpreted as including same-sex marriage, and as if a system other than marriage called "a system similar to marriage" was established by law. The provisions of this case (Civil Code Part 4, Chapter 2 regarding the marriage system and provisions of the Family Register Law), which do not legally recognize marriage between same-sex persons, are Article 14 of the Constitution. It is completely unacceptable that it does not violate paragraph 1, Article 24, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

Until now, the Tokyo defense team has argued that homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal personal value, and that the reality of the lives of legally same-sex couples is no different from that of legally heterosexual couples. I have repeatedly argued that there is no legal justification for excluding same-sex couples from marriage because there is no such thing. Nevertheless, forcing legally same-sex couples into a "marriage-like institution" is tantamount to stigmatizing legally same-sex couples as "second-class citizens." It only reinforces a situation that violates individual dignity.

In this way, the ruling did not accurately understand "personal dignity," and it must be said that it is unjust to judge that the Provisions do not violate the Constitution.

Therefore, on December 13, 2022, the Tokyo defense team filed an appeal against this ruling in order to truly realize freedom and equality in marriage.

2 Appellant's information

At the time of this judgment, there were eight plaintiffs in the Tokyo First Lawsuit, but seven of them, Oe, Ogawa, Ono, Nishikawa, Christina, Tadashi, and Katsu, appealed. name.

3 Appeal press conference

After the appeal, a press conference was held at the Judicial Press Club, where the appellants, Mr. Ono and Mr. Nishikawa, spoke about their thoughts on the appeal. In addition, the attorneys read the comments of the appellants, Mr. Tadashi, Mr. Katsu, Mr. Oe, and Mr. Ogawa.

4 Future plans

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

The battle will move to the Tokyo High Court, but the appellants and the defense team will do their best to get the High Court to hand down a better judgment. We ask for your continued support in the appeals process as well.

Sorry．