Former Education Minister Hakubun Shimomura Photo: REUTERS file
politics

Former education minister makes waves by linking same-sex marriage to revising constitution

54 Comments
By Linda Sieg

Former Education Minister Hakubun Shimomura, a conservative ally of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has called for discussion on revising Japan's constitution to allow same-sex marriage, annoying colleagues in the ruling party who are against it and also opposition parliamentarians who say enacting a simple law would clear the way.

Japan has no anti-LGBT laws although many LGBT people still conceal their sexuality.

But couples seeking to register same-sex marriages have been rejected by local authorities because there is no law specifically recognizing it.

The constitution, never amended since it was adopted after Japan's defeat in World War Two, says: "Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis".

Amending the constitution's pacifist Article 9 to clarify the status of Japan's military is a long-held goal of Abe and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Revising the article is highly controversial, although it has already been stretched to allow armed forces for self-defense.

Shimomura floated the idea of adding same-sex marriage to a list of other potential constitutional changes.

"It is important to proceed with debate without any taboo, including of the idea that a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman," NHK public TV quoted him as saying at a meeting of local LDP members last month.

The LDP has said same-sex marriage was "incompatible" with the constitution and Shimomura's remark caused concern at a meeting of the party's general affairs committee last week, media reported.

"One should not lightly make comments such as revising the constitution to recognize same-sex marriage," the Asahi newspaper quoted former cabinet minister Keiji Furuya as saying.

LGBT activists including Kanako Otsuji of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) - the country's first openly LGBT lawmaker - say no amendment is needed to allow same-sex marriage because the constitution does not explicitly ban it.

They have submitted a marriage equality bill to parliament in June, but the ruling coalition has declined to debate it.

"I think the goal is to shake up the opposition," Otsuji told Reuters, referring to Shimomura's suggestion. "If they agree with same-sex marriage, they should agree with our bill."

Shimomura's office declined a request for an interview due to his tight schedule.

A survey last year showed nearly 80 percent of Japanese in their 20s to 50s favored legalizing same-sex marriage.

"The constitution did not envision same-sex marriage when it was written...but it was not prohibited," said Gon Matsunaka, head of Pride House Consortium, which promotes LGBT awareness.

"Society and the world have changed and it is the responsibility of the legislature to pass a law in line with that."

Constitutional amendments must be approved by two-thirds of the members of both houses of the Diet and a majority in a public referendum. The ruling bloc has a two-thirds majority in the lower house but lacks one in the upper chamber.

© Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

54 Comments
Login to comment

Time to admit it's the 21st century.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Why?

What purpose does it serve in regards to revising the constitution. Leave it out of it.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Just devise a new term, couplehood.

Adults who wish to join a lifelong romantic partnership can form a couplehood.

If a man and woman want to join a lifelong partnership for the purpose of creating a new family, that can be called a marriage.

The problem is that "marriage" is trying to be applied into a wide range of circumstances. We should have specific words for specific circumstances.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

What purpose does it serve in regards to revising the constitution. Leave it out of it.

Yeah, what's the big idea with writing rights for the people into the constitution?!

10 ( +13 / -3 )

The constitution need not be changed, the current section about marriage can stay.

Just add a simple addendum.

People who wish to be romantically involved for life may enter a state recognized partnership. And the ward office will grant them a special paper with a stamp that certifies the partnership as state-certifified.

There, problem solved, everybody gets what they want.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

It's called an amendment idiot. Japan's ossan ruling class are so ignorant and incompetent.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

It's called an amendment idiot.

Amendment is a change.

Addendum is an addition.

I suggested an addition to the constitution, not a change.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Former Education Minister Hakubun Shimomura," let's revise the constitution to include same sex marriage. Oh and while we are making revisions, why don't we change article 9 at the same time. I'm just saying"

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Why?

The guy only pushes to obtain the revision of the anti-warmongering clause in Constitution. There exist no people more obsessed about the 1930's and 1940's fascist mood than Nobel Prize Patrick Modiano (that writes novels about it) and Japanese LDP's old beards that dream of going back to what they consider "good old times".

4 ( +6 / -2 )

All these problems arise from the attempt to redefine what "marriage" means.

Why do we need to redefine it, we didn't redefine the meaning of carriage when the automobile was invented, we merely created a new word.

Just create a new word for same-sex partnerships and keep the definition of marriage as it is.

Everybody wins and gets their rights granted.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Everybody wins and gets their rights granted.

Nope. We know that separate is never equal.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Yes. It’s the 21st century but it doesn’t change the biological reality that same sex couples cannot produce offspring.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

That headline is so misleading.

this ex-education minister is the same fool that wants to ban all humanities classes in Japanese universities because it does suit the Japanese education system. They don’t want students who can think. They want empty shells to mould into non-thinking zombie yes-men to be inducted into Nippon Kaigi.

From what I gather from this article, it is unnecessary to change the constitution to allow LGBT marriages. This joker is just spouting malarkey.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Given who this guy is and his history, I gotta ask.

Why is he making this suggestion at this point??? I mean, what is his motivation? Because I can't believe this guy actually truly believes in same sex marriage.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If your Constitution is maleable enough that it can state in unequivocal language that Japan will never possess weapons of war, while at the same time allowing Japan to have a huge military without that violating said Constitution, surely it can recognize same sex marriage despite a clause saying marriage is based on mutual consent from both sexes.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

same sex couples cannot produce offspring.

Lots of not-same sex cannot either "produce offspring" (in the way you mean it), they are still allowed to have a marriage.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

No need to add that part in. Totally against same sex marriages to begin with. Political correctness gone astray in my opinion along with same sex marriages within the laws and rights of citizens. There are opposite genders for a reason and mankind is not at the bottom of plants or species that co-mingle. Leave the Constitution as is.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

I think this might be a ploy to get support for changing the constitution in the hope people won't care about article 9 enough to get gay marriage. As the article mentioned though, it's unnecessary when a simple law can be passed

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes. It’s the 21st century but it doesn’t change the biological reality that same sex couples cannot produce offspring.

And?

No need to add that part in. Totally against same sex marriages to begin with. Political correctness gone astray in my opinion along with same sex marriages within the laws and rights of citizens. There are opposite genders for a reason and mankind is not at the bottom of plants or species that co-mingle. Leave the Constitution as is.

Shocking. Gender is a social construct, you meant opposite sexes.

Almost every species of mammals has homosexuality. You are arguing against biology.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

He is more famous now then when he was a minister.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

One had thought that this nasty little yakuza-linked Nippon Kaigi stooge and Big Juku mouthpiece was chained up in the LDP HQ basement alongside Tomomi Inada and Sanae Takaichi. Only the extremely gullible would take his words at face value.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

By restricting and limiting the rights of any one group of people automatically empowers the government to do the same to all people.

Ffurthermore, who does the legalization of same sex marriage actually harm? It's not like these couples don't exist in society. Allowing them to get married would only help the economy. When you restrict their rights, they will leave to find a place where they are accepted.

USA saw this back when Canada first legalized same sex marriage. This is ultimately what led to some states passing laws on same sex marriages.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Blatant transparent attempt to get the public behind Constitution change simply to get onto article 9.

People have been fooled by less.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Well now isn't that convinient? Rearm while allowing the LGBT to marry. By attaching a social issue that almost everyone will get behind to rearming, these dinosaurs assume they'll actually get away with revising pacifism. One only hopes people can see through the farce.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

David Cameron, the former UK Prime Minister, claims gay marriage as his biggest triumph.

Not that that gay marriage is a problem, far from it, just real-world evidence that very nasty politicians will use gay marriage to whitewash or divert attention from bigger and nastier policies they are pursuing.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

All these problems arise from the attempt to redefine what "marriage" means.

Burning Bush - the definition of marriage has always had multiple meanings. I studied the topic as part of an anthropology course and there are will over a hundred different concepts of what is meant by marriage around the world.

Many other countries have already accepted there concept of same sex marriage so therefore the definition has already changed.

However, as a pragmatic stopgap, your suggested approach to having a legally recognized union between two adults might reasonable.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Time to admit it's the 21st century.

Marriage throughout the ages has been between a man and woman

Going forward, I see no reason to change something that isnt broken

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

the definition of marriage has always had multiple meanings. I studied the topic as part of an anthropology course and there are will over a hundred different concepts of what is meant by marriage around the world.

And Japan has it own definition, duly and clearly defined in the constitution.

We should usurp, dilute or hijack that definition. Marriage in Japan is defined as man and woman.

That doesn't exclude or forbid same-sex couples from doing whatever they want with their lives. But they can't get the status of "married" anymore than a 15 year-old can claim a seniors discount because he believes everything must be "equal".

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

this ex-education minister is the same fool that wants to ban all humanities classes in Japanese universities because it does suit the Japanese education system.

The 2015 flap over a government directive allegedly calling for the abolition of social science and humanities in Japanese national universities (a small fraction of all Japanese universities) was totally fake news.

The alleged policy never existed and nothing happened.

This fake news is thoroughly debunked in chapter 7 of The Changing Face of Higher Education: Is There an International Crisis in the Humanities? (Taylor & Francis, London: 2018).

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Going forward, I see no reason to change something that isnt broken

It's broken.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Same sex couples are not being restrained in any way, shape or form.

But they are trying to request a societal privilege that they are not entitled to.

No different than an able-bodied person demanding the right to use the handicap parking space in the name of equality.

Society grants certain privileges to certain people because society feels that those people deserve those privileges. Seniors deserve discounts because they can't work, handicapped people deserve special parking spaces because they can't walk and male-female who agree to form a family together deserve special recognition because by virtue of being mammals of opposite genders who partake in sexual relations they have the potential to create new life which benefits society.

We can't all be "equal", that's not how society works.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

As usual, everything is backwards. Same-sex marriage is not illegal. It just isn't recognized by the petty government. If you want to marry someone of the same sex... or the opposite sex....or multiple people...or your pet...or your car, you just do it however you want to do it....in private...in a lavish ceremony, your choice. Stop looking to the government for permission to live your life. Marry as you want right away. Then fight the government for recognition later. Don't wait around for government permission. Its not their place to tell us what to do. Its their place to take the orders of the people....and the people should always be thinking to let others live in peace, freedom and consent.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The main arguments put forth for legal recognition of same sex marriage are, equality, fairness, non discrimination etc. Can these same arguments be used by polygamists (any number or combination) or incestuous people to claim recognition for their unions?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

It's broken.

says who? says you? and what authority are you?

Ill take thousands of tried and true precedents over your whimsical feel good opinion. The precedents have withstood time, something recent and radical has not.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

It's not broken.

says who? says you? and what authority are you?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

The main arguments put forth for legal recognition of same sex marriage are, equality, fairness, non discrimination etc. Can these same arguments be used by polygamists (any number or combination) or incestuous people to claim recognition for their unions?

I think you are absolutely correct about that. It's the elephant in the room. Supporters of same sex marriage have created a definition of marriage which makes it impossible to have a solid argument against polyamorous or incestuous marriages.

Why should we give the same form of recognition to different types of relationship? That should only be the case if the difference between those relationships is not important. But on a sexual level, there's a very clear difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality as the latter has also importance for society. A man and a woman should be held responsible for the children they have and without children there's no futur. And the fact that infertile opposite sex couples are allowed to get married is only because it's the same type of relationship. But infertile incestuous couples still aren't allowed to get married, exactly because fertile incestuous couples can't get married.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Plenty of comments here saying that same sex couples can't have kids. Thats totally incorrect. They can adopt, they can have sperm donors, they can even be transgender and do it the 'normal' way. Anyways, I don't see why anyone should be bothered by whats happening behind closed doors. Most Japanese seem to accept that thousounds of hikikomori stay behind closed doors their entire life and don't bother anyone. Why should a couple gays bother them?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Kumagaijin

Plenty of comments here saying that same sex couples can't have kids. Thats totally incorrect. They can adopt, they can have sperm donors, they can even be transgender and do it the 'normal' way. Anyways, I don't see why anyone should be bothered by whats happening behind closed doors. Most Japanese seem to accept that thousounds of hikikomori stay behind closed doors their entire life and don't bother anyone. Why should a couple gays bother them?

I think they are referring to the original reason why governments formalized and supported traditional marriage in the first place. It was a means of recognizing and supporting procreating couples, which ensured society's continuation and an ideal situation for child raising.

Comparatively, LGBTQ partnerships produce extremely few children. Such partnerships have not been considered the ideal combination for child raising due to one of the sexes being absent. While children raised by LGBTQ couples can in many cases do better than those raised by hetero couples, generally speaking the ideal is that children are raised by their natural parents who also offer male and female strengths and examples to follow.

Also, if we are going to allow LGBTQ marriage licences on the basis of 'equality' in that they are equally valid relationships equally capable of raising children, then what excuse do we have for not recognizing polyamorous unions (of any number and combination) or incestuous unions, or underage unions? Would not such people claim that they have equally valid unions capable of raising children as good as anyone else? You see where this is going? The line has to be drawn somewhere.

So, it's my opinion that society and governments ought to continue to promote heterosexual marriage as the gold standard situation in which children ought to be raised. At the same time other types of unions who have children should be given the same support as hetero couples, such as child benefits etc.

PS: I don't think anyone on this forum is 'bothered by what goes on behind closed doors', that is not the point they are making.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

 I can't believe this guy actually truly believes in same sex marriage.

Controlling private life is a battle the Conservatives consider secondary these days... He sees the same-sex marriage debate as an opportunity of trade-off of the Nihon-kaigi MPs with less reactionary MPs.

Then fight the government for recognition later. 

It's later. Now the couples demand their rights, like the spouse visas to allow both to live in one same country, the right to smoothly transmit what they own to widowed partner, etc.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Plenty of comments here saying that same sex couples can't have kids. Thats totally incorrect. They can adopt, they can have sperm donors, they can even be transgender and do it the 'normal' way.

By your definition anyone can of course 'have' a child. Three sisters could raise several children together if they want and are allowed to. But this has nothing to do with marriage.  The point is that a man and a woman are responsible for their own children and that's why it's important that this type of relationship receives a form of recognition with specific rights and duties. To extend this recognition to other types of relationships obscures the meaning of the relationship between man and woman. It's not the fact that you are able to obtain and raise child which matters, but your biological connection to them.

And it's in the best interest for children to have both a mother and father anyway, because it offers better role models for them and it doesn't make them feel so different from others who have their own mother and father.

Transgender identities obscure the meaning of being a man and a woman, by focusing mostly on feelings and fantasy. So when there's a transgender woman with male genitals in relationship with a cisgender woman you might want to call this a same sex relationship. But when you start calling someone a woman who has naturally functional male reproductive organs, then you could call anyone a 'woman' simply by how they want to identify. It's only because of procreation that man and woman exist with different bodies. That's the only reason nature created this difference between both sexes. So it would be better to call this a same gender relationship between opposite sexes instead of a same sex relationship. Actually, current prevalent ideas about transgender make any discussion about sexual orientation pointless, because sexual orientation is not based on which gender you are attracted to, but the biological sex, the male or female anatomy.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Marriage throughout the ages has been between a man and woman

Going forward, I see no reason to change something that isnt broken

It is broken. Maybe if you widens your horizons you could see that.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

It’s the 21st century but it doesn’t change the biological reality that same sex couples cannot produce offspring.

So opposite sex couples who cannot produce offspring shouldn't get married? Should they get divorced? Is the only goal of marriage to produce offspring? At any rate, it may be a bit complicated to change things, and will involve the registry laws, inheritance laws, etc., but it doesn't seem that the Constitution would need to be rewritten. A pacifist Constitution would have to rewritten if the goal is to no longer be pacifist, however.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

they can even be transgender and do it the 'normal' way. 

I actually agree with you here.

If the potential exists for a child to be conceived through consummation of the marriage, I believe that couple should be granted the privilege of a marriage license, provided that all the other criteria is met (not underage, not related and mental fit to consent).

Actually, under the currently law, I don't think such a pairing would be denied a marriage license anyway.

So opposite sex couples who cannot produce offspring shouldn't get married? 

Actually, no method of birth control is 100% effect. There always is a chance, however slight, of conception, even among so-called barren or infertile couples if they engage intercourse.

Therefore, such couples, if they publicly agree to a lifelong partnership, should be granted the privilege of a marriage license.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Burning Bush

they can even be transgender and do it the 'normal' way. 

I actually agree with you here.

I'll have to disagree with this. Ideally children need both biological male and female parents for a healthy upbringing and the respective role models. The Japanese government should continue to encourage this as the gold standard for marriage and child raising.

Of course, children of other types of unions should be given the same support in the form of child benefits etc.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So opposite sex couples who cannot produce offspring shouldn't get married? Should they get divorced? Is the only goal of marriage to produce offspring?

The only reason that some infertile couples can marry is because they are the same type of relationship as fertile couples who are allowed to marry. For example: If an opposite sex couple of two 80+ year old get married, it's the same type of relationship as a similar couple of the same age who got married at a younger age.

A relationship between man and woman also starts as only potentially fertile. You never know if they will really be able to procreate. And because procreation starts with a relationship and requires to have a stable commitment in order to create a safe, healthy environment for children to grow up, you can't tell people that they have to be sure already that they are fertile, in order to get married. Marriage comes first, and then their sexual intercourse may result in having children. So there's a bit of a gray zone between being potentially fertile, actually fertile and perhaps never fertile.

To force people to divorce because of infertility is cruel, because they have become intimate and shared their lives, so it would be painful to force them to separate. And at what point are you going to decide that someone is permanently unable to have children?

It's clear also that siblings aren't allowed to get married, fertile or not, and that's only because procreation is the reason marriage exists and incest leads to genetical degeneration. But once you allow same sex marriage, how are you going to argue that siblings aren't allowed to marry? Or are you going to discriminate against opposite sex couples by letting only same sex siblings get married? And there are already examples of such couples you can find on internet who would like to get married to enjoy certain benefits given to married couples.

And for those who support same sex marriage, I have also this question: in some places cousins are allowed to marry and in some places they are not allowed to marry. Would you consider this unjust discrimination? If so, why? And if not, then why would it be unjust discrimination to not allow same sex couples to marry?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's clear also that siblings aren't allowed to get married, fertile or not, and that's only because procreation is the reason marriage exists and incest leads to genetical degeneration.

That is not a universal rule, never has been, and there are no guarantees of genetic problems. Game of Thrones was not being unfactual about twin brother and sister having 3 basically normal kids. Its quite possible and has happened.

Moreover, its no one's business. Exactly the same as homosexual marriage. No one's business but theirs. Further, even if marriage is allowed that is a separate question from procreation anyway. Unmarried people procreate anyway. If its procreation you have a problem with, that is what you ban, not marriage.

But once you allow same sex marriage, how are you going to argue that siblings aren't allowed to marry?

Neither is actually defendable. Both are simply oppression. Neither needs the other to be so. They just are.

who would like to get married to enjoy certain benefits given to married couples.

NO BENEFITS are given to married couples. Only LESS OPPRESSION is offered.

Some benefits are given to parents yes. But NOT just for being married.

A relationship between man and woman also starts as only potentially fertile.

Totally irrelevant. Society has no stake in this but an imagined one or contrived one made for the sake of oppression....or perhaps an evil desire for more slaves/taxpayers. Whether two consenting people can procreate or not, maybe or maybe not, is not the business of the government unless the government is our master and we are but slaves.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Can these same arguments be used by polygamists (any number or combination) or incestuous people to claim recognition for their unions?

So long as people are not being philosophically myoptic maroons yes. FREEDOM! Say it with me....FREEDOM!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Same-sex marriage is not illegal. It just isn't recognized by the petty government. If you want to marry someone of the same sex... or the opposite sex....or multiple people...or your pet...or your car, you just do it however you want to do it....in private...in a lavish ceremony, your choice. Stop looking to the government for permission to live your life.*

I agree. People can have private marriage ceremonies any way they want. But they can't force me to recognize all kinds of relationships (in the form of marriage) as equally important for society. And because the sexual relationship between man and woman is literally of vital importance for the survival of our bloodline, tribe, race, nation … this type of relationship deserves a unique form of recognition by society.

even if marriage is allowed that is a separate question from procreation anyway. Unmarried people procreate anyway. If its procreation you have a problem with, that is what you ban, not marriage.

Marriages between first degree blood relatives are illegal in every country of the world, even though consensual incest itself is legal in a number of places like Spain, Russia, Australia, Brazil etc. So it's obvious that there's a universal connection between marriage and procreation. If you want to disconnect procreation from marriage, then what would be the difference with a civil union or cohabitation contract?

twin brother and sister having 3 basically normal kids. Its quite possible and has happened.

Of course it may happen that siblings have healthy children, but increased health risks are still the reason that marriages between siblings are forbidden everywhere now.

Whether two consenting people can procreate or not, maybe or maybe not, is not the business of the government unless the government is our master and we are but slaves.

There's no futur without children and for the protection of women and children, men shouldn't be allowed to make women pregnant without assuming responsibility. That's the reason why society and its government have an interest in procreation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But they can't force me to recognize all kinds of relationships (in the form of marriage) as equally important for society.

This is like saying the unmarried old woman who lives next door is not much use, even as she woke your family up in the middle of the night to tell your house was on fire, baby sat your kids when your wife had that big car accident, taught your kids how grow food, told those mushrooms you were so proud of were poison, called the cops when that thief was looking in your windows while you were on vacation, and was the only one who knew how to do the Heimlich maneuver on your baby when he got that cherry tomato stuck in his throat.

Fine, you just keep your fingers in your ears and decide there is nothing to convince you without even hearing the argument first.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is like saying the unmarried old woman who lives next door is not much use, ...

I didn't say that people have not much use when their relationship is not as important for society as another type of relationship. The topic is about so called marriage equality. It's not about how people can in general contribute to society.

Fine, you just keep your fingers in your ears and decide there is nothing to convince you without even hearing the argument first.

I replied to your comments. Did I miss something important?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I didn't say that people have not much use when their relationship is not as important for society as another type of relationship.

Your measure of value leads with procreation. It takes a village to raise a child. Any pair of fertile male and female numpties can spit kids out. I will take the gay couple that adopts and raises a child over an irresponsible pair of married misfits who created and abandoned that child any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will take the gay couple that adopts and raises a child over an irresponsible pair of married misfits who created and abandoned that child

As would I. Any single person would be better than parents who abandon their child. Even dogs could do a better job. And when you say that it takes a village to raise a child, it points to the responsibility of society towards the wellbeing of children. But this has nothing to do with marriage.

It's simply because the sexual relationship between man and woman has a unique, essential purpose that this relationship deserves to have a unique form of recognition. If you want to have a recognition for another type of relationship, you can have that too, like a civil union or cohabitation contract. Why does it have to be the same exact form of recognition for different types of relationships?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's simply because the sexual relationship between man and woman has a unique, essential purpose that this relationship deserves to have a unique form of recognition.

Not it doesn't. If those people can have kids and do, they have kids. That's their reward. The children deserve recognition. The people raising the child deserve recognition. The fact they can spit out kids is not deserving of any recognition or special status.

The government simply needs to get out of the marriage business. Its not their business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The fact they can spit out kids is not deserving of any recognition or special status.

It's the fact that they 'can spit out kids' which gives them a responsibility towards each other and their kids. This responsibility begins already before they have children, because a child needs to be able to live in a safe, caring environment. The recognition is a reminder about how important their relationship is. This is particularly significant for men, who unlike women, don't carry a child for 9 months in their own body. That's why marriage as recognized by society is a form of protection for women and children.

I am going to quote Ryan Anderson, who has written a lot about this topic:

"While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing. Adults are free to make choices about their relationships without redefining marriage and do not need government sanction or license to do so.

Government is not in the business of affirming our love. Rather, it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. There is no ban on same-sex marriage. Two people of the same sex may choose to live together, choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship, and choose a workplace offering joint benefits. There is nothing illegal about this.

What is at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages—and then force every citizen, house of worship, and business to do so as well. At issue is whether policy will coerce and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages. All people have the freedom to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone else."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites