Japan’s second-highest court just reminded activists that law and tradition still hold weight in Tokyo’s government buildings.

In a controversial but legally decisive moment, the Tokyo High Court ruled on Friday that Japan’s failure to legalize same-sex marriage does not violate its constitution—setting the stage for a showdown in the nation’s Supreme Court, as AP News reports.

This decision overturned a lower court ruling and marked the last of six regional lawsuits challenging the country’s civil definition of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.

Legal Setback Sends LGBTQ+ Case to Top Court

Unlike earlier decisions in Sapporo and Nagoya, which offered partial nods toward expanding rights, Tokyo's high court entrenched the national stance. The court held that same-sex couples are not entitled under current law to marital recognition or financial compensation.

The plaintiffs, eight individuals identifying as sexual minorities, had sought roughly $6,400 each in damages, claiming that being barred from marriage violated constitutional rights to liberty and equality.

Judge Ayumi Higashi rejected those arguments, stating that civil marriage in Japanese law is designed around a family structure consisting of a couple and their offspring. According to her, “a legal definition of a family as a unit between a couple and their children is rational and that exclusion of same-sex marriage is valid.”

Courts Echo Conservative View of Marriage

This was the first time a high court explicitly denied the legal claims of marriage equality plaintiffs, marking a blow to LGBTQ+ campaigners who had hoped courts might lead where politicians hesitate.

The decision aligns with a 2022 lower court outcome in Osaka, where judges also ruled the government’s marriage policy lawful, citing legislative intent centered on procreation and family structure.

Over 30 plaintiffs have been involved in lawsuits across Japan since 2019, all pressing for recognition under Article 24 and Article 14 of the constitution. They argue those protections should extend to same-sex couples. So far, the courts disagree.

Public Sentiment and Policy Continue to Diverge

While public opinion has shifted over the past decade, especially in urban centers, Japanese law—and its interpretations—remain conservative. That’s not necessarily a flaw, especially when judges work from legal texts, not activist trends.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s Liberal Democratic Party has remained consistently opposed to changing marital laws, reflecting a traditionalist view that marriage is for child-rearing, not activism.

The government’s position is clear: existing law prioritizes reproduction and lineage. That doesn’t mean same-sex couples are unwelcome in society, but it does mean they shouldn’t expect automatic redefinition of civic institutions overnight.

Emotions High, But Changes Still Distant

One of the plaintiffs, Hiromi Hatogai, said she felt “so disappointed” by the ruling and accused the judges of ignoring the voices of LGBTQ+ plaintiffs. “Were the judges listening to us?” she asked.

Another plaintiff, Rie Fukuda, struck a more hopeful tone, saying, “We only want to be able to marry and be happy, just like anyone else. I believe the society is changing. We won’t give up.”

Statements like Fukuda’s may win public sympathy, but they don’t hold legal sway. As long as marriage law remains rooted in biology and family preservation, the courts are likely to defer to legislators for changes—not reinterpret the constitution by judicial activism.

Path to Japan’s Final Judicial Arbiter

Now that all six lawsuits have been decided at various levels, legal teams are expected to appeal the cases to Japan’s Supreme Court. A final answer could come as soon as 2026.

Until then, the judiciary has drawn a line: social shifts and corporate campaigns don’t change civil code. Cultural change may influence legislation in time, but so far, it hasn’t rewritten marriage in the country’s courts.

As Japan remains the only G7 nation not to legally recognize same-sex unions, it’s clear that blending modern identity politics with centuries-old family institutions will be no quick affair. And maybe that’s as it should be—slow, deliberative, and not driven by hashtags.