/

Japan’s Justice Ministry proposes scrapping six-month ban on women remarrying following divorce

by

Staff Writer

In a landmark policy shift, the Justice Ministry will submit an amendment to the Diet seeking the abolishment of a six-month ban on women remarrying after divorce, an official said Friday.

The amendment contains a provision that women are not pregnant at the time the marriage is dissolved.

If enacted, the proposal — drafted in response to a Supreme Court ruling in December — will end a law that came into effect in 1898 that critics have blasted as sexist.

For women who are pregnant at the time of their divorce and who desire to remarry, the proposal seeks to shorten the current 180-day waiting period to 100 days, while women who are not pregnant would not have to wait at all.

The ministry is planning to submit the amendment to the Diet in March, the ministry official, who declined to be named, told The Japan Times.

The Supreme Court, in response to a lawsuit filed by a woman in her 30s in Okayama Prefecture, ruled in December that the century-old statute banning remarriage within six months of divorce was unconstitutional.

The top court determined that the law “excessively restricts women’s right to freedom of marriage.”

The ban was originally introduced during the Meiji Era (1868-1912) to avert confusion over the paternity of children born immediately after a divorce. But the court said it no longer serves that purpose in an era of early pregnancy detection and DNA testing.

Tomoshi Sakka, the lawyer who represented the Okayama woman, hailed the proposal by the Justice Ministry as “groundbreaking” and said he was surprised the ministry had taken such a bold step to modernize the law.

While shortening the ban to 100 days is designed to keep in line with the Supreme Court decision, declaring divorcees immediately able to remarry signals a historic — if long overdue — end to discrimination against women, he said.

“Since it is estimated that 90 percent of women are not pregnant when they divorce, the proposal, (if passed), would exempt almost all divorcees from the current ban,” Sakka said.

However, he added, Japan still lags behind countries such as Germany and others, where even pregnant divorcees do not have to contend with such a ban, and where fetuses are automatically recognized as having been fathered by the new husband.

Scrapping the proposed 100-day ban on pregnant women is now the last hurdle Japan needs to overcome, he said.

“I was happy the Supreme Court ruled in my favor, but the fact that the Diet will discuss such a drastic legal revision has made me doubly happy,” the Okayama woman was quoted by Sakka as saying.

The statute declaring a six-month ban on women’s remarriage corresponds to a separate law stipulating that a baby born within 300 days of divorce is the child of the previous husband, while one born at least 200 days after the second marriage will be considered that of the new husband.

  • Roy Warner

    They’re still not getting this, are they? There is no need to wait a single day and waiting is meaningless. The child’s father might be neither the previous nor subsequent marriage partner, but a third man, for all the Justice Ministry would know. Paternity can be substantiated by a cffDNA test of maternal blood while the child remains in utero or with a buccal swab of the child after birth. It’s called science, mates.

  • GBR48

    The Okayama woman should be proud that she has initiated such a change. It’s not often that an individual can initiate a change in the law that can benefit so many people.

    The ‘pregnant pause’ clause is an odd one. Surely fatherhood should never be assumed, regardless of marital status, but nominated at the time of birth by the mother. Given the nature of modern relations and paternity testing, this last flaw in the system should also be removed.

  • Jamie Bakeridge

    “Abolishment”? Surely “Abolition”!!

    • At Times Mistaken

      What’s the difference?

  • skillet

    What’s the hurry ?

    • R0ninX3ph

      You’re right, there’s no hurry, they should ban men from remarrying for six months, the same as women.

      Since there’s no hurry and all they want is equality, that’s fine right?

      • skillet

        It’s because of the pregnant pause

      • skillet

        It’s because of the pregnant pause

      • R0ninX3ph

        But if the woman isn’t pregnant, why should she wait?

      • skillet

        to be sure. Better safe than sorry !

      • R0ninX3ph

        I hear women have this miraculous ability contained in their body that lets them know once a month if they are pregnant or not, and if that warning sign goes off, then there is this amazing new thing now called “Science”. It is obviously quite new, so I assume that is why you haven’t heard of it, but I will tell you what this new fangled “Science” can do.

        It can, without a doubt, tell a woman whether she is, or is not, actually pregnant! Amazing right?

      • R0ninX3ph

        I hear women have this miraculous ability contained in their body that lets them know once a month if they are pregnant or not, and if that warning sign goes off, then there is this amazing new thing now called “Science”. It is obviously quite new, so I assume that is why you haven’t heard of it, but I will tell you what this new fangled “Science” can do.

        It can, without a doubt, tell a woman whether she is, or is not, actually pregnant! Amazing right?

      • skillet

        I don’t care.

      • R0ninX3ph

        That was fairly obvious from your posts, you don’t care about logic, you only care about voicing your conservative views.