The global movement towards marriage equality has seen significant progress in recent decades. In Japan, while national-level legal marriage for same-sex couples is not yet a reality, the conversation is rapidly evolving, driven by landmark court rulings, growing public support, and the actions of local governments and corporations. For US employers with operations or personnel in Japan, understanding this dynamic legal and social landscape is crucial for fostering inclusive workplaces, managing employee benefits, and aligning with global diversity standards.

The Current Legal Framework: No National Recognition

Under current Japanese national law, same-sex couples cannot legally marry. The Civil Code of Japan, in provisions such as Article 739 which states that marriage comes into effect by notification pursuant to the provisions of the Family Register Act, and references to "husband and wife," has been traditionally interpreted as permitting marriage only between a man and a woman. The Family Register Act (戸籍法 - Kosekihō), which governs family registration, also operates on this premise.

This lack of national recognition means that same-sex couples are denied numerous legal rights and protections automatically afforded to married heterosexual couples. These include, but are not limited to, spousal inheritance, joint parental rights, spousal tax deductions, medical decision-making authority, and spousal visas for foreign partners.

Constitutional Challenges and Landmark Rulings

The primary legal challenges to Japan's stance on same-sex marriage revolve around two key articles of the Constitution of Japan:

• Article 24, Paragraph 1: "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis." The traditional interpretation focuses on "both sexes," implying heterosexual unions. However, proponents of marriage equality argue that the core principle of Article 24 is the freedom of marriage based on individual dignity and consent, and that "both sexes" should be interpreted in light of evolving societal norms and the equality principle.
• Article 14, Paragraph 1: "All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin." Arguments here center on whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry constitutes unjustifiable discrimination based on sexual orientation.

A series of lawsuits across Japan have brought these constitutional questions to the forefront, yielding varied but increasingly significant outcomes:

• Sapporo District Court (March 17, 2021): This was a watershed moment. The court ruled that the government's failure to recognize same-sex marriage violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality under the law. It found that denying same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage, while granting them to heterosexual couples, lacks rational grounds and constitutes unjustifiable discrimination. However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for damages from the state.
• Osaka District Court (June 20, 2022): In contrast to Sapporo, this court found that the ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional, highlighting the differing judicial interpretations across the country.
• Tokyo District Court (November 30, 2022): This ruling found that the lack of legal provisions for same-sex marriage puts these couples in a "state of unconstitutionality" concerning Article 24, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution (which calls for laws on marriage and family to be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes). However, it did not find the provisions directly unconstitutional under Article 14 or Article 24, Paragraph 1.
• Nagoya District Court (May 30, 2023): This court delivered a stronger judgment, ruling that the provisions failing to recognize same-sex marriage violate both Article 14 (equality) and Article 24, Paragraph 2 (individual dignity and equality of sexes in family law), and are therefore unconstitutional.
• Fukuoka District Court (June 8, 2023): Similar to the Tokyo ruling, this court found the situation to be in a "state of unconstitutionality" with respect to Article 24, Paragraph 2.
• Sapporo High Court (March 14, 2024): This was the most significant ruling to date, becoming the first High Court decision to declare that the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Register Act that do not allow same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The court found these provisions violate Article 14, Paragraph 1 (equality under the law), Article 24, Paragraph 1 (freedom of marriage), and Article 24, Paragraph 2 (individual dignity and essential equality of the sexes in family legislation). This appellate court decision carries substantial weight and intensifies the pressure for legislative reform.

These rulings, particularly the Sapporo High Court decision, reflect an evolving judicial understanding and highlight the growing legal consensus that the current situation is problematic from a constitutional standpoint. While a final determination by the Supreme Court is still pending, the direction of these lower and appellate court decisions is notable.

Local Government Partnership Systems

In the absence of national marriage equality, many local governments across Japan have introduced "partnership systems" (パートナーシップ制度 - pātonāshippu seido). As of early 2025, a significant majority of Japan's population resides in municipalities or prefectures that offer some form of same-sex partnership recognition.

These systems typically involve couples registering their partnership with the local government, which then issues a certificate. While these certificates provide a degree of official recognition and can be beneficial in certain local contexts (e.g., for public housing applications, hospital visitation rights in municipal hospitals, and sometimes for private sector services where companies choose to recognize them), they do not confer the comprehensive legal rights and protections associated with marriage under national law. They do not grant rights related to inheritance, national tax benefits, or spousal visas.

Nevertheless, the proliferation of these systems signifies growing social acceptance and puts indirect pressure on the national government to address the issue. For employers, these local systems can sometimes be a basis for extending certain company-level benefits.

The "Legal Effects of Marriage" Denied to Same-Sex Couples

The inability to marry legally has tangible negative consequences for same-sex couples in Japan. The "legal effects of marriage" (婚姻の法的効果 - kon'in no hōteki kōka) that they are currently denied include:

• Inheritance Rights: Without marriage, a surviving partner is not automatically an heir and may face significant difficulties inheriting assets if there is no will.
• Tax Benefits: Spousal deductions and other tax advantages available to married couples are not accessible.
• Medical Decision-Making: In medical emergencies, a partner may not have the legal authority to make decisions for their incapacitated loved one.
• Parental Rights: Joint adoption by same-sex couples is not permitted. If one partner has a child, the other partner typically has no legal parental rights, creating instability for the child.
• Spousal Visas: Foreign partners of Japanese nationals in same-sex relationships generally cannot obtain spousal visas, leading to residency uncertainties. While there have been instances of "designated activities" visas being granted on a case-by-case humanitarian basis, this lacks the security of a spousal visa.
• Social Insurance and Pension: Access to dependent status for health insurance or survivor benefits under the national pension system is generally tied to legal marriage.

Implications for US Employers in Japan

The evolving legal and social landscape surrounding same-sex unions in Japan has several direct and indirect implications for US companies operating there:

1. Workplace Equality and Non-Discrimination:
   • SOGI Harassment: Japan's Power Harassment Prevention Act (改正労働施策総合推進法 - Kaisei Rōdō Shisaku Sōgō Suishin Hō), which became mandatory for large companies in June 2020 and for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in April 2022, includes protection against harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). Employers have a duty to prevent such harassment.
   • Inclusive Environment: Creating a workplace culture where LGBTQ+ employees feel safe, respected, and valued is crucial for morale, productivity, and talent retention.
2. Employee Benefits and Company Policies:
   • Voluntary Extension of Benefits: Many multinational corporations, and increasingly Japanese companies, are voluntarily extending company-specific benefits to employees' same-sex partners. These can include:
     • Congratulatory and condolence leave/payments (e.g., for partnership ceremonies or bereavement).
     • Family care leave.
     • Housing allowances or relocation assistance.
     • Access to company facilities.
     • In some cases, companies with their own health insurance societies (kenkō hoken kumiai) may have discretion to recognize same-sex partners as dependents, though this is not universal.
   • Limitations: National statutory benefits tied to legal marriage (e.g., certain tax advantages, national pension survivor benefits) cannot typically be replicated by company policy alone.
3. International Employee Mobility:
   • This is a significant challenge. If a US company transfers an employee to Japan who is in a legally recognized same-sex marriage or civil union in their home country, their spouse will generally not be eligible for a dependent (spousal) visa in Japan.
   • While immigration authorities have sometimes granted "designated activities" visas (特定活動 - tokutei katsudō) on compassionate or humanitarian grounds, this is not a guaranteed or stable solution and often requires extensive documentation and advocacy. This uncertainty can be a major deterrent for international assignments.
4. Diversity, Inclusion, and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):
   • Many US companies have global D&I policies that affirm equality for LGBTQ+ employees. Extending these principles to their Japanese operations is a matter of consistency and can enhance their reputation as progressive employers.
   • Supporting LGBTQ+ equality can be a positive aspect of a company's CSR profile in Japan.

Navigating the Current Environment: Practical Steps for Employers

Given the current legal ambiguities but clear social momentum, US employers in Japan can take proactive steps:

1. Review and Update HR Policies: Ensure internal policies (e.g., anti-discrimination, harassment, leave, benefits) are as inclusive as possible of employees with same-sex partners, within the constraints of Japanese law. Define "partner" or "equivalent of spouse" clearly for company-administered benefits.
2. Internal Communication: Clearly communicate the company's stance on LGBTQ+ inclusion and the availability of any partner-inclusive benefits.
3. SOGI Awareness Training: Provide training for managers and employees on SOGI issues, unconscious bias, and the importance of a respectful workplace.
4. Support Employee Resource Groups (ERGs): If an LGBTQ+ ERG exists or employees wish to form one, offer support and resources.
5. Benefits Parity Assessment: Regularly assess what benefits can be legally and practically extended to same-sex partners to achieve greater parity with married heterosexual couples.
6. Advocacy and Support (Optional): Some companies choose to publicly or privately support initiatives advocating for marriage equality or LGBTQ+ rights in Japan, aligning with their corporate values.
7. Stay Informed: The legal situation is evolving. Keep abreast of court rulings, legislative discussions, and changes in local government partnership systems.

The Path Forward

While the Japanese Diet has yet to pass legislation recognizing same-sex marriage nationally, the momentum from court rulings, especially the Sapporo High Court's unconstitutionality decision, is significant. Public opinion polls increasingly show majority support for marriage equality. Business federations like Keidanren have also begun to voice support, recognizing its importance for international competitiveness and talent attraction.

The ultimate path to national recognition may involve further litigation culminating in a Supreme Court decision, or legislative action spurred by public and judicial pressure. In the interim, the actions of individual companies in promoting inclusive policies and extending benefits play a vital role in supporting LGBTQ+ employees and signaling corporate values.

Conclusion

The legal recognition of same-sex unions in Japan is at a critical juncture. While national marriage equality remains elusive, a series of groundbreaking court decisions, particularly the Sapporo High Court's 2024 ruling, have declared the current situation unconstitutional, creating strong impetus for change. For US employers, this evolving landscape necessitates a proactive and informed approach to HR policies, employee benefits, and fostering an inclusive workplace culture. By understanding the legal challenges and social trends, companies can better support their LGBTQ+ employees in Japan and align their practices with global standards of equality and diversity.