Photo/Illutration Kiyoko Kashiwagi, left, and Kazuhiro Soda attend a film festival in New York. (Provided by Kazuhiro Soda)

Yet another glaring inconsistency has emerged in the Japanese institution of marriage that forces married couples to share the same surname.

Ignoring this any longer is totally wrong. The Diet must take remedial steps without delay.  

Film director Kazuhiro Soda and dancer Kiyoko Kashiwagi, both based in the United States, married 24 years ago under New York state law, keeping their respective surnames.

But when they sought to register their marriage in Japan three years ago, their application was rejected because they had separate surnames.

They filed a lawsuit against the Japanese government.

To their disbelief, the government argued that since the couple's refusal to share the same surname indicated their lack of intention to marry, their marriage could not be recognized as valid in Japan.

Under the Act on General Rules for Application of Laws, which applies to issues involving the laws of multiple countries, marriage is subject to the laws of the land where it takes place.

The Tokyo District Court, where Soda and Kashiwagi filed their lawsuit, stated that "the law allows Japanese citizens abroad to marry under separate surnames," and ruled their marriage valid in Japan.

That was only to be expected.

However, the court took no action to legitimize the couple's marriage, claiming that the rejection of their application for marriage in Japan will neither endanger nor cause any real damage to their legal status.

Come again?

Surely, there are many situations where an official proof of marriage from a public organ becomes necessary.

Couples who remain "unwed" under Japan's "koseki" family registry system risk forfeiting various rights, including those for claiming tax benefits and applying for adult guardianship, not to mention being denied spousal rights in matters of inheritance.

The district court's argument that "the marriage is valid but the partners are ineligible for legal protection" raises this obvious question: What, then, is the Act on General Rules for?

From the standpoint of honoring the rights and equality of individuals, progress is being made abroad to allow married couples the options of having the same surname, keeping them separate, or combining them.

In Japan, too, corporate executives have formed a group to collect signatures calling for an early introduction of a dual-surname system to "realize a society where every individual will be allowed to function as they are."

The awareness of the urgency of the need to change the laws is spreading across a broad spectrum of society.

But the ruling Liberal Democratic Party is lagging way behind the times.   

The party formed a working team to discuss the surname issue and held meetings twice this month, but decided to defer any specific talks until after the next Lower House election.

There is no question that, with oppositions parties now declaring their readiness to accept dual surnames for married couples, the LDP intends to sit on the fence and avoid letting this become a focal election issue.

The party seems to be turning a blind eye to the plight of people who are being forced to accept the single-surname rule as a condition for marriage.

Twenty-five years have elapsed since the Legislative Council of the Ministry of Justice, which advises the justice minister, first proposed the introduction of the dual-surname system for married couples.

We must say that human rights have remained neglected for the last quarter century.

The time for waiting is over.

--The Asahi Shimbun, April 28  

Related News