this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
186 points (97.9% liked)

World News

37340 readers
5245 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A Japanese high court ruled Thursday the country's lack of legal recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, in a move likely to further mount pressure on the government to do more to protect sexual minorities.

The Sapporo High Court upheld the lower court's landmark verdict in 2021 that said non-recognition of same-sex marriage violates the right to equality protected under the Constitution but rejected a total of 6 million yen ($40,600) in damages sought by three same-sex couples in Hokkaido against the state for emotional distress.

The plaintiffs said they will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (4 children)

The plaintiffs said they will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Wait, they can appeal a decision which they won

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

The article has a paragraph later on that says:

In rejecting the plaintiffs' claims for damages, the court said, "It cannot be said that discussions at the Diet...regarding provisions not allowing same-sex marriage are clearly in violation of the Constitution."

I suspect the plaintiffs are only appealing that aspect of the judgment.

load more comments (3 replies)