This is an AI translated post.
Setagaya Ward Considering 'Husband (Unregistered)' Notation on Resident Registration for Same-Sex Couples
- Writing language: Korean
- •
- Base country: Japan
- •
- Others
Select Language
Summarized by durumis AI
- Setagaya Ward in Tokyo is considering using the notation 'Husband (Unregistered)' in the family relations section of resident registration cards for same-sex couples, signaling a move towards treating same-sex couples on par with de facto marriage households.
- Meanwhile, Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has come under fire for its discriminatory policy of denying unemployment benefits to same-sex partners, drawing criticism that it constitutes discriminatory treatment of same-sex partners.
- In a recent Supreme Court ruling, same-sex partners were included under the 'those who have been in a de facto marriage relationship' in the Crime Victim Support Act, suggesting that discriminatory treatment of same-sex partners may gradually be addressed.
Norito Hosaka, the mayor of Setagaya Ward, Tokyo, announced at the ward assembly on the 11th that he will consider labeling the kinship column on resident registration cards for same-sex couples as "husband (unregistered)", similar to the treatment for unmarried heterosexual couples. Setagaya Ward has previously designated same-sex couples as "relatives". In response to a question from Ayaka Uekawa, a ward assembly member, Mayor Hosaka stated, "I believe this would be a more accurate representation for the parties involved, and I want to implement it."
Setagaya Ward and Shibuya Ward introduced the partnership system in 2015, ahead of the rest of the country, and it is now spreading nationwide. The issue of labeling for same-sex couples began in Omura City, Nagasaki Prefecture, which issued a resident registration card in May listing a male couple's kinship as "husband (unregistered)". Kurayoshi City in Tottori Prefecture has also taken similar action.
Meanwhile, Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare has issued a notice regarding the payment of relocation benefits under the Employment Insurance Act, stating that only the cost for a single person will be recognized, even if the individual is in a common-law marriage (despite being registered as such on the resident registration card). This has drawn criticism for being discriminatory against same-sex partners and violating the right to equality. Yasushi Miura, Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Health, Labor and Welfare, replied, "Same-sex partners are not treated as being included in the (eligibility) scope." He continued, "We would like to examine this matter, taking into account the situation regarding other systems, and if necessary, we would like to discuss it at the Labor Policy Council before reviewing it."
Under the Employment Insurance Act, those eligible for benefits can receive reimbursement for transportation expenses for themselves and their family members if they relocate for work. The amount of payment varies depending on whether the partner is legally recognized as family. Currently, common-law couples are eligible for benefits, but same-sex couples are not included.
Keita Matsuura consulted with the city hall about the possibility of listing the kinship column on his resident registration card as "husband (unregistered)", hoping that this would allow same-sex couples to be treated equally to common-law couples.
In response, Matsuura said, "I believe this is a significant step forward that they are willing to consider. I am happy. I am grateful that Omura City has paved the way, which led to this positive consideration."
In March of this year, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex partners are included in the "persons in circumstances equivalent to de facto marriage" under the Act on Support for Crime Victims, etc. Municipalities across the country are now taking action in response. Similarly, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare's approach of not recognizing family member benefits for same-sex partners in the payment of relocation benefits under the Employment Insurance Act, distinguishing them from common-law couples, will likely face calls for re-examination soon. If this goes to court, the outcome is clear. Since this is considered the same as common-law marriage on the resident registration card, wouldn't it be wise to promptly recognize the benefits?