Japan's ban on recognizing same-sex unions is unconstitutional, a court finds. Here's what to know

TOKYO — Japan's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a high court ruled Friday, the latest victory for the LGBTQ+ community to add pressure on the reluctant government.

Friday's decision by the Fukuoka High Court in southern Japan marks the eighth victory out of nine rulings since the first group of plaintiffs filed lawsuits in 2019. Here is what to know about the lawsuits, what's next and what it means to the LGBTQ+ community.

Q. What did the court say in the latest ruling?

A. In Friday's ruling, presiding Judge Takeshi Okada noted that the current civil law provisions barring the marriage of same-sex couples violates their fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness guaranteed under Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution.

The court also said the ongoing ban violates sections in the Constitution that guarantee equality, individual dignity and the essential equality of both sexes. The judge said there is no longer any reason to not legally recognize same-sex marriage.

The government has argued that marriage under civil law does not cover same-sex couples and places importance on natural reproduction. After the ruling, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi told reporters that the government will monitor pending lawsuits and public opinion.

Q. Why is the ruling significant?

The rulings can still be appealed to the Supreme Court, but lawyers and plaintiffs say the overwhelming 8-1 wins are already enough and the government should quickly take action.

Friday's verdict comes at a time the main obstacle to recognition, Japan's conservative Liberal Democratic Party, was forced into leading a minority government after its major election loss in October. The LDP is likely to have to compromise more on liberal policies pushed by the opposition parties such as marriage equality, which is largely supported by the general public.

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, considered a centrist who has indicated support for same-sex marriage, told a parliamentary session last week he is aware of the sufferings of the same-sex couples and that he will not just ''sit back and do nothing.'' His comment raised hope among the LGBTQ+ community and their supporters. It is unclear whether he will act, or how much he could do against resistance within the party.

Q. Why are plaintiffs suing?

A. More than 30 plaintiffs have joined the lawsuits on marriage equality filed in five regions across Japan since 2019. They argue that civil law provisions barring same-sex marriage violate the Constitutional right to equality and freedom of marriage.

Under Japan's civil and family laws that recognize marriage only between a man and woman, the privileges and protection that result from matrimony such as inheritance rights, tax and other benefits are limited to heterosexual couples. Same-sex couples seek the same rights to pursue happiness and social recognition as a family.

Q. What's next?

Two more high court rulings are pending in Osaka and Nagoya, and are expected in March.

Takako Uesugi, a lawyer representing plaintiffs in Tokyo, said Friday that with all three high court rulings in favor of their campaign she has high expectations for the two upcoming decisions.

''We'll continue fighting until we achieve legalization of same-sex marriage,'' she said and urged the government to legalize marriage equality as soon as possible.

Though discrimination still exists at school, work and elsewhere, public backing for legalizing same-sex marriage and support among the business community have rapidly increased in recent years.

Japan is the only member of the Group of Seven industrialized countries that does not recognize same-sex marriage or provide any other form of legally binding protection for LGBTQ+ couples.

The governing LDP, known for its conservative family values and reluctance to promote gender equality and sexual diversity, has stonewalled the campaign. The government enacted a non-binding LGBTQ+ awareness promotion law last year that critics said was watered down.