Read on Twitter
Beate Sirota Gordon did indeed put women's rights into Japan's constitution, but what this article does not teach you is that (mis)interpretations of Article 24 are also used as an argument against marriage equality nowadays.
(1/?) https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/she-put-womens-rights-into-japans-constitution/
(1/?) https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/she-put-womens-rights-into-japans-constitution/
2. While it should be rather clear that Article 24 is simply intended to make sure that women have the same rights within a marriage, usage of the words "both sexes" and "husband and wife" has led to the interpretations that same-sex marriages are unconstitutional.
3. In 2015, Abe for instance said that because of the inclusion of those words the constitutionality of same-sex marriage should be thoroughly examined and that Japan should be careful about considering whether Article 24 should be revised to allow it. https://www.sankei.com/politics/news/150218/plt1502180034-n1.html
4. In 2018, Seiji Osaka of the Constitutional Democratic Party asked about same-sex marriage, and Abe again responded by saying that the point about "the mutual consent of both sexes" means that recognition of single-sex marriages can not be assumed.
http://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_shitsumon.nsf/html/shitsumon/b196257.htm
http://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_shitsumon.nsf/html/shitsumon/b196257.htm
5. In 2019, the LDP's Hakubun Shimomura suggested that Article 24 could be revised, alongside a number of other articles, once again illustrating that the LDP's stance is that the constitution currently does not allow same-sex marriages. https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2019101500667/interview-ldp-open-to-debate-on-opposition-constitution-proposals.html
6. But does Article 24 really ban same-sex marriage? The more than a dozen LGBT couples who are currently suing the Japanese state in various court cases certainly don't seem to think so. They argue the opposite is the case, actually. https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/entry/same-sex-marriage-lawsuit_jp_5c64bae0e4b0aec93d3b0413
7. This politician, who belongs to a party that's often characterized as right-wing or conservative, not only pointed out that Article 24 doesn't ban same-sex marriage, but he also said that the lack of marriage equality is actually unconstitutional. https://twitter.com/writerofscratch/status/1199093643140894720?s=20
8. Gaku Ito of the Japanese Communist Party holds the same view as Kushida: the constitution doesn't ban men from marrying men, or women from marrying women. In fact, allowing them do so is the natural thing to do from the perspective of the constitution! https://twitter.com/writerofscratch/status/1199108653871173637?s=20
9. These two politicians, who belong to parties that are often diametrically opposed to each other, both point towards Article 13 of the constitution. This is my favourite article of the constitution and it goes as follows:
10. If the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" of all of Japan's citizens should be the supreme consideration of the government and legislation, doesn't that clearly indicate that Article 24 cannot possibly be interpreted as a ban on same-sex marriage?
11. Legal scholar Sota Kimura has also pointed out that Article 24 does not, at any point whatsoever, mention a ban on same-sex marriages. The article's sole intent is to make gender equality the basis of heterosexual marriages. https://www.bengo4.com/c_23/n_8579/
12. If Beate Sirota Gordon and the other drafters of Japan's constitution had wanted to make it so that a marriage is only constitutionally valid if it consists of a husband and a wife, they would have stated that more clearly, don't you think?
13. The very simple fact of the matter is that none of the people gathered around the drawing board had probably ever thought about the concept of same-sex marriages. The heteronormativity of Article 24 was a byproduct of the times. Not a legal statement. https://twitter.com/writerofscratch/status/1135578008880898048?s=20
14. Sirota has apparently said so herself too. Shortly before she died, she stated that these matters were simply "not in her thinking" at the time, and that she believed that the rights enshrined in Article 24 should also be extended to LGBTQ+ couples.
http://eikoandkoma.org/index.php?p=ek&id=4996
http://eikoandkoma.org/index.php?p=ek&id=4996
