The global movement towards legal recognition of same-sex relationships has seen significant progress in many developed nations. Japan, while home to a vibrant LGBTQ+ community and growing public support for marriage equality, currently stands at a crucial juncture. While national-level legal marriage for same-sex couples remains unrecognized, a series of landmark court rulings and the proliferation of local government partnership systems are reshaping the legal and social contours of family in Japan.

For U.S. companies operating in Japan, these developments are more than just societal trends; they carry tangible implications for human resources, diversity and inclusion initiatives, employee well-being, talent attraction, and a nuanced understanding of the Japanese social context.

The Current Legal Status of Same-Sex Couples in Japan

As of early 2025, Japan does not legally recognize same-sex marriage at the national level. The Civil Code and Family Register Act are traditionally interpreted as pertaining to heterosexual couples only. This lack of national recognition means that same-sex couples are denied a wide range of legal protections and benefits automatically afforded to married heterosexual couples. These include, but are not limited to, spousal inheritance rights, joint parental rights over children, spousal tax deductions, and spousal visas for foreign partners of Japanese nationals.

In response to this legal vacuum, a growing number of prefectural and municipal governments across Japan have introduced "partnership systems" (paatonaashippu seido - パートナーシップ制度). These systems allow same-sex couples (and often heterosexual couples in common-law relationships) to register their partnerships and receive certificates. While these certificates represent a significant step towards social recognition and can facilitate certain practicalities (e.g., hospital visitation rights, access to some private sector family services), they do not confer the comprehensive legal rights and obligations associated with legal marriage under national law. Their effectiveness is largely limited to the jurisdiction that issues them and relies on the goodwill of individual institutions and businesses to recognize them.

The practical difficulties faced by same-sex couples without legal marriage are numerous, spanning areas like healthcare decision-making for incapacitated partners, securing joint housing loans or rental agreements, and, crucially, inheritance and parental rights.

The Constitutional Debate: A Clash of Interpretations

The core of the legal challenge to Japan's current stance on same-sex marriage lies in its Constitution. Activists and legal scholars argue that the denial of marriage equality violates several fundamental constitutional principles.

Article 24 – "Marriage," "Both Sexes," and "Individual Dignity"

Article 24 of the Constitution is central to the debate.

• Paragraph 1: "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes (ryousei - 両性) and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis."
  • The traditional, and government-held, interpretation is that "both sexes" explicitly limits marriage to unions between a man and a woman.
  • Proponents of marriage equality argue for a more dynamic interpretation. Some contend that "both sexes" reflected the societal norms at the time of the Constitution's enactment in 1946 but should not preclude its application to same-sex couples in light of evolving societal understanding and the principle of individual dignity. Others suggest that the emphasis should be on "mutual consent" to form a marital union, regardless of the gender of the parties.
• Paragraph 2: "With regard to choice of spouse, property rights, inheritance, choice of domicile, divorce and other matters pertaining to marriage and the family, laws shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity (kojin no songen - 個人の尊厳) and the essential equality of the sexes."
  • This paragraph is increasingly a focal point. Legal arguments posit that it imposes a positive obligation on the Diet (Japan's parliament) to enact family laws that respect the dignity of all individuals. The complete absence of any national legal framework for recognizing and protecting same-sex committed relationships, it is argued, contravenes this principle of "individual dignity." Denying same-sex couples the option to form a legally recognized family unit is seen as a fundamental affront to their dignity and their ability to pursue happiness.

The historical context of Article 24 is also invoked. It was enacted post-World War II with the aim of dismantling the feudalistic "ie" (家 - household) system, which prioritized the collective family unit over individual rights, and establishing a new family law system based on individual dignity and gender equality. Arguments are made that this foundational purpose supports an interpretation that prioritizes the protection of all individuals wishing to form committed family units.

Article 14 – Equality Under the Law

Article 14, Paragraph 1 states: "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."

The argument here is that denying same-sex couples access to the legal status and attendant benefits of marriage constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation without reasonable justification. Sexual orientation, while not explicitly listed as a prohibited ground in Article 14, is argued by many to be an inherent characteristic akin to those listed, or at least a ground upon which arbitrary discrimination is impermissible. Courts have grappled with what constitutes "unreasonable discrimination" in this context, leading to varied conclusions.

Article 13 – Right to Happiness and Respect as Individuals

Article 13 guarantees that "All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs."

Proponents of marriage equality argue that the right to choose one's partner and form a legally recognized family is fundamental to individual dignity and the pursuit of happiness. Denying this right to same-sex couples based on their sexual orientation is seen as a failure to respect them as individuals. Sexual orientation is increasingly understood as a core aspect of personal identity, and the lack of legal recognition for same-sex relationships can be viewed as a denial of this identity by the state.

Landmark Court Rulings and Their Implications

In recent years, a series of lawsuits across Japan have challenged the constitutionality of denying same-sex marriage. These "Marriage For All" lawsuits have yielded significant, though sometimes conflicting, judicial pronouncements, dramatically raising the profile of the issue:

• Sapporo District Court (March 17, 2021): This was the first ruling in the series. The court found that denying same-sex couples the legal benefits of marriage, while not providing any comparable system, violates Article 14 (equality under the law) as it constitutes discrimination without rational grounds. However, it did not find a violation of Article 24, interpreting "both sexes" as referring to heterosexual marriage. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for damages, stating the Diet was not immediately aware of the unconstitutionality.
• Osaka District Court (June 20, 2022): In contrast, this court ruled that the denial of same-sex marriage is constitutional, finding no violation of Articles 14 or 24. It emphasized the traditional understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing.
• Tokyo District Court (November 30, 2022): This court found that while the Civil Code and Family Register Act provisions themselves are not unconstitutional, the current situation where there is no legal system for same-sex couples to form families creates a "state of unconstitutionality" (iken joutai - 違憲状態) with respect to Article 24, Paragraph 2 (individual dignity). It did not, however, find a violation of Article 14.
• Nagoya District Court (May 30, 2023): This court delivered a stronger ruling, finding that the provisions denying same-sex marriage are unconstitutional under both Article 14 (equality) and Article 24, Paragraph 2 (individual dignity).
• Fukuoka District Court (June 8, 2023): Similar to the Tokyo ruling, this court found the current legislative inaction to provide a legal framework for same-sex families to be in a "state of unconstitutionality" in light of Article 24, Paragraph 2.
• Sapporo High Court (March 14, 2024): This was a landmark decision, being the first High Court ruling on the matter. It declared that the provisions of the Civil Code and Family Register Act that do not allow for same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, violating Article 14, Article 24 Paragraph 1 (interpreting "marriage" broadly to include same-sex unions), and Article 24 Paragraph 2. This was a significant step up from the Sapporo District Court's earlier ruling.
• Tokyo High Court (March 14, 2025): In another significant appellate decision, the Tokyo High Court also found the current legal provisions preventing same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, specifically referencing Article 24, Paragraph 2 (individual dignity).

These varying judgments reflect an intense and evolving judicial discourse. While no ruling has immediately legalized same-sex marriage (as that requires legislative action by the Diet), the accumulation of decisions finding the current situation unconstitutional, especially at the High Court level, significantly increases pressure on lawmakers to act. The argument that the current legal framework does not adequately protect the "individual dignity" of same-sex couples, as mandated by Article 24(2), appears to be gaining particular traction in the courts.

Business Implications for US Companies in Japan

The evolving legal and social landscape concerning same-sex couples in Japan has several direct and indirect implications for U.S. companies operating in the country:

• Employee Benefits and HR Policies: A primary challenge is the equitable provision of employee benefits. Without legal marriage, it can be complicated to extend spousal benefits—such as health insurance dependent coverage (though some insurers are becoming more flexible), family leave, bereavement leave, congratulatory/condolence payments, and relocation allowances—to the same-sex partners of employees. Many multinational companies, and a growing number of progressive Japanese firms, are proactively addressing this by, for example:
  • Recognizing local government partnership certificates for internal purposes.
  • Creating internal policies that define "spouse" or "partner" inclusively to allow same-sex partners to access company-provided benefits, where legally permissible.
  • Offering equivalent financial support or alternative benefits where direct spousal status is a barrier due to national laws (e.g., for national social insurance).
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives: U.S. companies often have global DEI policies that champion LGBTQ+ equality. Implementing these policies effectively in Japan requires navigating the local legal framework and cultural sensitivities. Supporting LGBTQ+ employees and fostering an inclusive workplace can enhance a company's reputation as an employer of choice.
• Talent Attraction and Retention: Particularly among younger generations and international talent, a company's stance on LGBTQ+ inclusion can be a significant factor in employment decisions. Companies seen as progressive and inclusive are more likely to attract and retain a diverse and skilled workforce. Conversely, a perceived lack of support can be a detractor.
• Understanding Societal Trends and Corporate Reputation: Public support for marriage equality in Japan has been consistently rising. Companies that align with these evolving societal values may see benefits in terms of brand image and consumer loyalty. Conversely, inaction or perceived discrimination could pose reputational risks.
• Navigating Visa and Immigration Issues: For employees being transferred to Japan, the lack of national recognition for same-sex marriage creates significant hurdles for their foreign same-sex spouses in obtaining dependent visas. This can be a major disincentive for international assignments. Similarly, Japanese employees with foreign same-sex spouses face difficulties when seeking to have their partners reside with them in Japan under spousal status. While partnership certificates from certain localities are sometimes considered by immigration authorities as one piece of evidence for a "designated activities" visa, this is not a guaranteed or straightforward process and falls short of the security offered by a spousal visa.

The Path Forward: Legislative Action and Societal Change

The series of court rulings, coupled with increasing public and business sector support, has intensified the pressure on the Japanese Diet to address marriage equality or, at a minimum, create a national system for recognizing same-sex partnerships with comprehensive legal protections. Business federations in Japan have also begun to voice support for legalizing same-sex marriage, citing benefits for economic competitiveness and talent attraction.

While the path to national legislative change can be slow and subject to political considerations, the direction of social and judicial discourse suggests a continued movement towards greater recognition and protection for same-sex couples.

Conclusion

The legal landscape for same-sex couples and the definition of "family" in Japan are undergoing a period of significant evolution, driven by constitutional litigation, changing social norms, and the actions of local governments. While national marriage equality is not yet a reality, the momentum is undeniable.

For U.S. companies operating in Japan, this evolving environment requires ongoing attention and proactive adaptation. Staying informed about legal developments, reviewing and updating HR policies to promote inclusivity where possible, and fostering a workplace culture that respects all employees are crucial steps. Successfully navigating this landscape will not only ensure legal compliance and mitigate risks but also position companies to attract diverse talent and align with the increasingly progressive values of Japanese society.