Lesbian couple ‘wed’ amid calls to legalize same-sex marriage

AFP-JIJI

A lesbian couple held a symbolic wedding ceremony Sunday as calls grow to legalize same-sex marriage.

While their marriage will not be recognized under law, actresses Ayaka Ichinose, 34, and Akane Sugimori, 28 — both dressed in white — reportedly tied the knot anyway in front of some 80 relatives and friends in Shinjuku Ward, Tokyo.

“We held the wedding ceremony so that it might become easier for others to do the same in the future,” Sugimori told the media afterward.

She added that they will try to register their marriage with a municipal office but expect the application to be rejected.

Last month, Tokyo’s Shibuya Ward Assembly voted to issue “partnership” certificates to gay couples, the first such recognition of same-sex unions in Japan. Other municipalities are considering doing the same.

The certificate will carry only symbolic significance, since the Constitution identifies marriage as a union based on the mutual consent of parties from “both sexes.” Some legal experts, however, say the supreme law only spells out equality between married partners and does not ban same-sex marriage per se.

Japan lacks legal protection for gay couples, who complain they can be prevented from visiting loved ones in hospitals or refused tenancy because such relationships are not officially recognized.

  • Eagle

    Utterly wrong. Same-sex, lesbians or gays should never marry. Why should when they cannot have children? Same sex parents should never raise kids.
    If it comes to family then the only family is the traditional one. There are things that should not be changed. The family is not a fad.

    • bomblol

      go away

      • Dikaiosyne

        Why? Is only a homogeneity of thought permitted here?

    • nine

      Tradition is just habit, driven by the needs of the era in which that habit was necessitated.

      Times change, needs change, habits change. Calling something tradition is just an excuse not to confront one’s own fear of change.

      • Dikaiosyne

        “Calling something tradition is just an excuse not to confront one’s own fear of change.”

        I so enjoy your traditional argument against tradition. :)

      • nine

        It’s a classic, yeah… :/

        The sad thing is that it’s still valid after all this time.

      • Dikaiosyne

        “The sad thing is that it’s still valid after all this time.”

        Really? So, for all cases in which a person calls something “traditional,” that person is avoiding confronting their fear of change? Wow… That’s a rather broad brush that paints over many exceptions for using the term “traditional” –and the etymology of the term evidences this…

      • nine

        *rolls eyes*
        Grammatical gymnastics won’t change the fact that tradition is the oft-used excuse to block equality. If you want to have literature debate about the use of words, I suggest you conduct it elsewhere. At the moment you just come across as trivializing a serious topic.
        Discrimination and the social stonewall costs lives. It destroys families, and alienates not just those directly targeted by their gender identity or sexual preference, but also those around these people – their children, their friends, their family.
        You would be wise to treat that reality with a little more respect.

      • Dikaiosyne

        “Grammatical gymnastics…”

        This is an issue of semantics, not syntax.

        “…tradition is the oft-used excuse to block equality.”

        I have no idea what “oft-used” means empirically, but at lease some cases exist where “tradition” is used in this way. I was only challenging justifying the inductive move from some to all, thus the earlier “broad brush” reference.

        “…literature debate…”

        Who was engaged in a literature debate?

        “You would be wise to treat that reality with a little more respect.”

        It’s curious that you read disrespect into my words. A bit Rorschachian, no?

        ps: If you’re still experiencing problems with your eyes rolling, please don’t hesitate to get them checked… :)

      • Tesla_X

        Tradition is also founded on NECESSITY, like the need to help solve Japan’s collapsing younger generation, needed to support their elders.

        While this is harmless in a minority, it is less than helpful to their significant looming population problems.

        Consequently, Tradition is more than just a ‘habit.’

      • nine

        Obviously did not read the article.

        Willing parents, waiting to raise a child.
        Next useless excuse to continue subjugating a minority that deserves equal rights?

      • Tesla_X

        My comment wasn’t about rights, just reality.

        Minorities can do as they please in most civilized countries, even Japan. I’m cool with that.

        Do these 2 Ladies plan on rearing children?

        And helping provide for the future of Japan?

      • nine

        I’ve just told you they do. Can you not read?

        “We want to submit a notification of our marriage even though we do not know whether it will be accepted,” Ichinose, 34, said at a news conference after the ceremony.

        Sugimori, 28, told reporters, “We want to raise kids by adopting children or through other means.”

        And you can guarantee they’ll be much more attentive mothers than the average absentee salaryman is a father.

    • Trevor Talbot

      Then why are the elderly and people who are impotent or barren allowed to marry?

      • Dikaiosyne

        Your question works only by way of the Hasty Generalization informal fallacy.

    • Eagleisadumbass

      Eagle, if couples who can’t make children shouldn’t be married, then what about straight couples who either choose not to have children or for medical reasons cannot have children? Are they also “utterly wrong”? I can’t wait for your generation to die out.

    • Jamie Bakeridge

      Bigot.

    • fun_on_tv

      So following your logic adults who can’t have children shouldn’t be allowed to get married. So people who are infertile, too old to have children etc can’t get married!
      Traditional family? What is a traditional family? A long time ago 14 year old children would get married to much older men. It was traditional. Do you want to go back to that kind of “traditional family”?
      Also in Thailand, some Muslims countries and in Utah multiple partners were allowed. That was traditional. Are you advocating it’s return?
      Stop hiding behind illogical arguments and admit you don’t like gays and lesbians.
      Before you mention religion think on. Not all religions have one God or a fix notion of marriage.

      • R0ninX3ph

        Trying to use logic with these kind of bigots is pointless.

      • Dikaiosyne

        I don’t get the use of the term “bigots” here. Have you successfully won arguments–or won anybody over to your viewpoint–with this strategy?

      • R0ninX3ph

        I am not trying to win anyone over. It was a statement. It is pointless to use logic when arguing with people who blindly hate certain people for completely fickle and nonsensical reasons.

      • Dikaiosyne

        “…who blindly hate…”

        How can you possible know this about Eagle? This assertion certainly isn’t logically derived.

      • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

        He probably *does* want multiple 14 year old brides… girls obviously… The boys are already bagsied by the Roman catholic clergy.

      • Dikaiosyne

        “So following your logic adults who can’t have children shouldn’t be allowed to get married.”

        This inference is blatantly incorrect, since it’s based upon the informal fallacy called Hasty Generalization. Eagle was clearly and specifically referring to same-sex as the proximate cause of childlessness. You erroneously overgeneralized this to all causes of childlessness. That move simply and unequivocally doesn’t work.

        “Stop hiding behind illogical arguments and admit you don’t like gays and lesbians.”

        Why the ad hominem attack? You were doing quite well just focusing on the meaning of “traditional fmily.”

      • fun_on_tv

        Interesting.
        Eagle states that gays and lesbians can’t raise children as they are naturally childless. Which strictly speaking isn’t true. A lesbian can give birth and a gay man can father a child.

        Why mention illogical arguments? Simple I would rather deal with someone who is honest about their true feelings on an issue. It is easier to discuss something if everyone is open and honest about how they feel on a subject for example race sexuality.

        I don’t mind people having an opinion on something as long as it can be logically explained. For example I can’t be friends with xxxx because I feel uncomfortable. That is something that can be address. Yes, it too is illogical. However the underlying issues can be address.

        Throwing up illogically arguments is just an avoidance technique that helps no one.

      • Dikaiosyne

        “Why mention illogical arguments?”

        Because fun_on_tv used an informal fallacy in an inference which resulted in an unjustifiable conclusion erroneously derived from Eagle’s post. Thus, it was unfair to attack Eagle’s post in light of that bad inference.

        I understand your preference for hearing “true feelings,” but in too many contexts those who state such are unmercifully crucified.

    • J.P. Bunny

      Always nice to know that some bit of the Dark Ages has survived. Hope you never fall in love with the “wrong” type of person.

      • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

        I hope he does.

      • Dikaiosyne

        “Always nice to know that some bit of the Dark Ages has survived.”

        I’m so glad to know that some of us here are so ‘enlightened’…

      • R0ninX3ph

        We may not be ‘enlightened’, but at least we wish everyone, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, have the same legal rights and privileges. If you do not feel the same, you are free to have your own opinion. It doesn’t make you any less on the wrong side of history however.

      • Dikaiosyne

        “…at least we wish everyone, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, have the same legal rights and privileges.”

        As a country is slowly and internally reforming toward this end wish, it’s crucial to not ostracize those who don’t come aboard to champion the cause. Embracing diversity–which is at the heart of inclusivity–includes respecting even those who harbor prejudice.

        The phrase “the wrong side of history” is too often invoked when no other cogent arguments can be offered. I thought you were doing quite well focusing on and detailing your wish without that closing invocation. Or was it an incantation?

      • R0ninX3ph

        I say it, because I do not see any difference between the same-sex marriage “problem” and the interracial marriage “problem”. Those who opposed interracial marriage are now seen as backwards, the same situation to those who oppose same-sex marriage now. THUS, they are on the wrong side of history, because same-sex marriage, in my mind, is inevitable.

        But you knew what I meant didn’t you. You’re just here to troll and provoke, that’s fine, its your choice to do that. I respect that you have that option and that you can freely exercise it.

        What I do not have to do, is respect your opinion. I can respect your rights to have an opinion, but I am not required to respect the content of the opinion, and that is what I choose to do. I choose, which is my right, to not respect the content in your opinion regarding same-sex marriage.

        I agree not ostracising people due to their prejudices is best, but as I said, I do not have to respect the opinion, just respect their right to have one.

      • Dikaiosyne

        “I say it, because I do not see any difference between the same-sex marriage ‘problem’ and the interracial marriage ‘problem’.”

        However, others do.

        “You’re just here to troll and provoke…”

        Why the ad hominem?

        “What I do not have to do, is respect your opinion.”

        This is a simple given. And on this article’s topic, I haven’t shared my opinion; inferring such from my posted words here would be akin to an ink-blot test.

      • Jonathan K.

        “And on this article’s topic, I haven’t shared my opinion”

        Though you have not-shared your opinion rather a lot.

      • R0ninX3ph

        Accusing you of trolling and provoking is not ad hominem. It is an accusation. I have not used ad hominem to defeat your argument, in fact, I simply said you have the right to do that, I also have the right to not listen to you. So, good day sir.

      • J.P. Bunny

        I’m pleased you are glad. Go away. Awaiting knee jerk response.

      • Dikaiosyne

        Yours is an implicitly-thoughtful response…

      • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

        Oh, don’t make Dikaiosyne go away – I am rather enjoying watching someone who is using a Greek handle arguing against the rights of homosexuals. ;-)

        Perhaps our “righteous” friend is closeted?

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      It is/was traditional to stone women to death for adultery… men? Not so much… Way to go tradition.

  • Jay

    Those are lesbians?! What a shame, they’re lovely.

  • Jamie Bakeridge

    They make a lovely couple – wishing them every happiness together. And great that they have chosen to publicize it – by famous people showing the normality of same sex marriage, this will help garner social acceptance and much needed administrative reform in local municipalities.

  • Eagle

    Hello everybody,
    Yesterday I posted a message that for some reason hasn’t appeared or just delays therefore I post it once more even adding a few new idea to it.

    I am awfully sorry I wrote my first post in haste and forgot to use quotation mark. What I wrote were actually the words of the two biggest gays in the world Dolce & Gabbana. My apologies.

    Read : “Biggest gays in the world Dolce & Gabbana say gays shouldn’t raise babies”
    One more quote from their interview.
    “It’s a bit perplexing. Dolce and Gabbana are gay, former lovers but they’re against gay marriage and against same sex parents raising kids.”

    Reading your replies and seeing the offensive answers I would like to remind you that everybody’s human rights and freedom of speech should be respected, including gays. Dolce & Gabbana bravely risked their business (they are fashion designers for gays) making their statement. Proved not only their taste, (very successful designers) but their moral stand too.

    Alternatively, it might be that they saw it clearly that if LGTB movement becomes a political movement fostering too much attention, it might as well become obnoxious for the wider layer of the societies, creating unwanted controversial result, therefore it’s better step on the brake in time.

    They suffered many insults from the LGTB after their statement that clearly proved the fanatic and uncivilized nature of many of the critics from the LGTB where even their very own members are discriminated if they dare to have their own individual view and opinion. That is a very sad and dangerous thing and this is a problem, not being a gay.

    My previous post contained a link to the report, as soon as it goes through the moderation you can read it.

    • Dikaiosyne

      “They suffered many insults from the LGTB after their statement that
      clearly proved the fanatic and uncivilized nature of the many critics
      from the LGTB where even their very own members are discriminated if
      they dare to have their own individual view and opinion.”

      Religion is not the only home for fundamentalists.

      It’s a shame that you were so quickly crucified for the post that you published yesterday.

  • Jae Hwan Jung

    Healthy “homosexuality” I like it! The right woman is cute.

  • Edward Himsel

    Sadly, Japan is a rather conservative country legally speaking, and many of their laws remain virtually unchanged from the ones implemented by the US-led coalition just after the end of WWII. And of course, at the time, the Americans wanted to keep Japanese people in Japan, White people in white people countries, and gay people in the closet…

  • CLJF

    Do the majority of posters here realize the irony of their hurling around of the label “bigot” at those who don’t ascribe to their opinions/line of thinking?