Views from the Abyss #2: Marriage in Japan

So Shibuya Ward has passed an ordinance that allows same sex marriage has it? Well, not exactly, it's more like a formal recognition of same sex partnerships, kind of like a civil union; a certificate of "we're a real couple" that the Ward is encouraging businesses to also recognise on pain of being slightly embarassed.

Still, gay and lesbian activists seem pretty happy with this outcome, so good for them! I don't doubt it's only a matter of time before other municipalities follow suit.

Q: So does this mean Japan is now heading in the direction of recognising same sex marriage? As in, the real deal?

A: No.

Not going to happen.

And no amount of racially provocative remarks towards lawmakers from occasional Simpsons' voice actor George Takei will ever change that.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. These are only mere predictions based on the evidence of my own knowledge and first hand experience.

George Takei describing African American
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
as a "clown in blackface" last week

In the court of popular opinion, the conjugal view of marriage reigns supreme. Getting married, to most people in Japan, is synonymous with starting a family—maybe not immediately, but it is inevitable, for why else would they marry?! Recent opinion polls may have revealed that 50% of the public support same sex marriage, but opinion polls can intentionally be very misleading. Remember that silent majority of fence sitters I previously alluded to? That's the bulk of your 50% right there (citation needed). When asked if they would object in principle to the legalising of same sex marriage, something they'd no doubt never given any particular thought to previously, they shrugged their shoulders and muttered, "sure, why not."

Q. Why not indeed!

A. Because it's not so much that same sex marriage is illegal, and more because same sex marriage is impossible.

And it's not only same sex marriage: international marriage too. A Japanese citizen cannot marry a foreigner in Japan.

Q. Now hang on. I know that's patently untrue. Several of my friends are Japanese citizens married to foreigners in Japan.

A. Allow me to clarify (which I was about to do anyway, before that rude interruption). Unlike some countries, marriage in Japan is more than just a sheet of paper. It starts out as one, sure, but that sheet of paper is a mere node upon a complex paper trail that entrenches itself deep into a mountain of other paperwork that forms the legal basis of your entire life's history and that of anybody related to either of you, and to them.

The "koseki" system as it's known is a nationwide family register system with a history spanning back as far as the 6th century (arriving in its current form postwar), and is the legal backone of the nuclear family. No marriage is valid until both male and female partners are united by a single koseki record that they can call their own.

And the entire rational behind men and women uniting into a single koseki is for their potential children.

Which all sounds great, until you understand the one minor caveat: only Japanese citizens may appear on a koseki record. No ifs. No buts.

So what this means is that Japanese citizens marrying foreign nationals still get to fill out the sheet of paper, but when it goes to be processed, only the Japanese partner appears on the koseki. If you ask nicely though, they will mention the fact of the "marriage" in the literal footnotes.

So for all intents and purposes, one party is actually single as far as regular marriages go, and the other doesn't even exist in the same legislative plane. And just to really rub it in, they don't even have to share the same surname, something that it is, again, impossible for regularly married couples to avoid. If an internationally married couple wishes to share a surname, one will have to change it manually...

Putting pedantics aside for one moment, an "international" marriage, as it's known, gets to have its own special name because it is entirely dissimilar in almost every regard to a regular marriage, from a legal viewpoint. If anything, it's actually closer to a civil union, but everyone just calls it marriage anyway, it's afforded the same benefits as a regular marriage, and outside your municipal office it's given all the same legitimacy as a regular marriage, so nobody takes much interest in it. There are occasional embarassments (and dare I say it, stigmas) when enrolling young children into schools, as much of the legal paperwork excludes one parent entirely, but this is generally the limit of the umbrage.

Thus "married", but not married.

They'd even get to fill out a regular divorce application at the end of it. Isn't that cute.

Q. So where does this leave same sex marriage?

A. Who knows? The arguments for allowing international marriages are much stronger than those for same sex marriage, because the crucial non-arbitrary distinction between an international male-female union remains valid. Despite this, they haven't been able or willing to adapt the koseki system to accommodate this rapidly increasing trend. At all. It doesn't appear to even be a subject for debate.

At best, same sex couples may in the future expect a similar treatment, some kind of civil union with State benefits that's recognised qualititively as being an equivalent to some aspects of marriage.

But as with international couples, a regular marriage will never be an option.