Recently, multiple high courts in Japan have asserted that prohibiting legal recognition of homosexual partnerships constitutes a human rights violation. Numerous same-sex couples have contested the existing marriage laws, with all five high courts examining related cases unanimously deeming the current system "unconstitutional." They identified violations of the Japanese Constitution, particularly Article 14, which emphasizes legal equality, and Article 24, which advocates for laws governing marriage to uphold individual dignity.

While some lower courts had previously supported the constitutionality of the marriage system or issued ambiguous rulings, the higher courts have taken a decisive stance, criticizing the government's lack of action regarding necessary reforms. Unlike heterosexual couples, same-sex couples face barriers in having their marriages acknowledged, which is a form of discrimination linked directly to their sexual orientation. The resolute conclusions of the high courts reflect a strong commitment to confronting this unfair situation.

The high courts have worked to safeguard the rights of same-sex couples from various legal angles. The Sapporo High Court took an assertive stand, ruling that the established laws infringe on Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to marry. Though typically referencing "both sexes," the court interpreted it as a right for individuals to freely unite.

Additionally, the Fukuoka High Court contended that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates Article 13 of the Constitution, which upholds the right to seek happiness. They highlighted that legal recognition of marriage must be equally available to both heterosexual and homosexual individuals. The traditional definition of marriage as a union solely between a man and a woman has also been questioned by the courts, with the Tokyo High Court noting that the framework of Japan's marriage laws does not necessitate an intention or ability to have children.

Although some nations have adopted alternative systems to protect the rights of same-sex couples besides marriage, the Osaka High Court cautioned that doing so could lead to further discrimination against same-sex partnerships. Same-sex couples currently experience a range of disadvantages when it comes to taxation, social security benefits, inheritance rights, and custody matters. They may also face obstacles in healthcare situations, such as participating in hospital decisions when their partners are ill.

This pressing issue requires timely legislative action. It is crucial for the Diet to address the recognition of same-sex marriage expediently, rather than waiting for a verdict from the Supreme Court.