LGBTQ RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS
South Korea’s first ever same-sex marriage bill goes to parliament

Marriage equality supporters gather outside the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea, on Wednesday to mark the launch of the country's first same-sex marriage bill. Photograph: Rainbow Action/Marriage Equality Korea

Symbolic bill sponsored by cross-party group of lawmakers is hailed a ‘historic moment’ in fight for marriage equality


Raphael Rashid in Seoul

THE GUARDIAN

Wed 31 May 2023 05.40 BST

Lawmakers in South Korea have proposed the country’s first same-sex marriage bill, in a move hailed by civic groups as a defining moment in the fight for equality.

The marriage equality bill, proposed by Jang Hye-yeong of the minor opposition Justice party and co-sponsored by 12 lawmakers across all the main parties, seeks to amend the country’s civil code to include persons of the same sex in marriage.

The bill is unlikely to pass but forms part of a trio of bills expected to increase pressure on the government to expand the idea of family beyond traditional criteria. The two other bills relate to civil unions and IVF for unmarried women.

South Korea does not recognise civil same-sex partnerships. The constitution stipulates that marriage and family shall be established “on the basis of individual dignity and equality of the sexes”. This provision has usually been regarded as restricting marriage to the union of opposite-sex couples.

“Family is the most basic unit that forms a larger community called society,” Jang said in front of the National Assembly on Wednesday.


South Korean court recognises legal status of same-sex couples for first time

“It’s a historic moment, but this is just the start,” Ryu Min-hee, a lawyer at the Marriage Equality Korea civic group, told the Guardian. “The bills must be discussed by the National Assembly immediately.”

Past efforts to grant legal rights to same-sex couples have been opposed by religious groups that claim such moves would “legalise homosexuality”. The same argument has been used to block anti-discrimination legislation.

Wednesday’s announcement follows a landmark ruling in February that recognised the legal status of same-sex couples for the first time in terms of national health insurance.

As South Korea faces an impending demographic crisis, including a world-record low birthrate, there have been increased calls to redefine the concept of a family.

Moves to broaden the definition to include cohabiting couples or single-member families were reversed under the current administration of President Yoon Suk-yeol.

South Korea’s potential, though unlikely, move towards marriage equality comes at a time when other countries in the region make advances.

Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan have already extended marriage rights to same-sex couples.

In Japan on Tuesday, a court ruled that the ban on same-sex unions was unconstitutional.

Social consensus is often stated by politicians as the reasons for opposing equality laws, including same-sex marriage. According to a Hankook Research survey, 52% of respondents opposed the idea of legislating same-sex marriage in South Korea.

Lawmaker Jang told the Guardian that the responsibility of politicians was to contribute to the process of achieving this consensus.

“Enacting laws is the process of achieving social consensus in a democratic society. I don’t think that these two things are separate or that one comes before the other.”

Japan government under renewed pressure to end same-sex marriage ban

Lawyers and supporters celebrate after ruling at Nagoya district court in central Japan on Tuesday. Photograph: 稲熊成之/AP

Calls grow for marriage equality as another court rules ban is unconstitutional


Justin McCurry in Tokyo

THE GUARDIAN

Tue 30 May 2023 

Pressure is building on Japan’s government to legalise same-sex unions after a court ruled that a ban on them was unconstitutional.

Rights advocates said the ruling on Tuesday by Nagoya district court was a step forward in the campaign to end Japan’s status as the only G7 country not to fully recognise same-sex unions.

It is the second time a court in Japan has ruled the ban unconstitutional, while two other courts have decreed the ban is in line with the postwar constitution, which defines marriage as based on “the mutual consent of both sexes”.

But the Nagoya court, ruling on a lawsuit filed by two men who are in a relationship, rejected the couple’s demand that the state pay each of them 1m yen (£5,715) in compensation for denying them the right to marry.

“This ruling has rescued us from the hurt of last year’s ruling that said there was nothing wrong with the ban, and the hurt of what the government keeps saying,” the couple’s lawyer, Yoko Mizushima, told journalists and supporters outside the court.

Mizushima was referring to a ruling in Osaka last year that the ban was not unconstitutional. A court in Tokyo later reached a similar conclusion but said the lack of legal protection for same-sex families violated their human rights.

While the courts cannot compel the government to act, the latest ruling is expected to reignite the debate over same-sex unions, less than a fortnight after it submitted an LGBTQ+ rights bill designed to avert criticism ahead of the G7 leaders’ summit in Hiroshima.

The government had promised to pass a law to promote “understanding” of LGBTQ+ people before the G7, but opposition from conservatives in the ruling Liberal Democratic party (LDP) forced it to submit a watered-down bill the day before the summit began.

The bill initially said “discrimination is unacceptable” but now says that “unfair discrimination” should not be tolerated – wording that campaigners said had rendered the legislation meaningless.

While lifting the ban on same-sex unions is opposed by “family values” conservatives in the LDP, opinion polls show public support for same-sex marriage as high as 70%.

More than 300 municipalities in Japan allow same-sex couples to enter partnership agreements – covering about 65% of the population – but their rights are limited.

Same-sex couples are unable to inherit their partner’s assets – such as the house they may have shared – and have no parental rights to any children their partners may have. Hospital visits are often possible only at the discretion of medical staff.

The prime minister, Fumio Kishida, has provoked anger by claiming that Japan’s ban on same-sex marriage was “not discriminatory” and that legalising it would “fundamentally change society” and challenge so-called traditional family values.

In February, he sacked a senior aide who said he “would not want to live next door” to an LGBTQ+ couple and did “not even want to look at them”.

Agencies contributed reporting