2021年総会シンポジウム　事前登録方法・プログラム

日時 2021年10月24日（日）10時〜16時
場所 　Zoomウェビナー
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_9CPbKlODR-ytJzcVieYKqQ
【上記リンクより事前登録をお願いいたします】

次第
10月24日(日)
10:00〜12:00　シンポジウム
12:00〜12:20 総会前半
12:20〜13:50 昼休み（この間に理事会および評議員会を開きます。）
13:50〜14:00 総会後半（理事会および評議員会報告）
14:00〜16:00 シンポジウム 後半

《時間割》
9:30 受付開始
シンポジウム『同性婚訴訟――家族の多様化と世界的変化の中で』
10:00 開会・趣旨説明（溜箭将之）
10:10 加藤 丈晴
10:40 別府理佳子/Rikako Beppu
11:10 Frank Upham
11:40 質疑応答・討論
12:00 総会前半
12:20 昼休み 理事会・評議員会合同会議
13:50 総会後半
シンポジウム後半
14:00 陳昭如/Chen Chao-ju
14:30 Alexander Dmitrenko
15:10 Daniel Machado
15:40 質疑応答・討論
16:00

シンポジウム
『同性婚訴訟――家族の多様化と世界的変化の中で』趣旨説明
溜箭将之

同性婚をめぐる日本初の憲法判断とその影響　−訴訟代理人の立場から−
加藤 丈晴（北海道合同法律事務所）

CHANGING HEARTS AND MINDS, ONE PERSON AT A TIME
弁護士と外国法弁護士が共に活動するLLAN「LGBTとアライの為の法律家ネットワーク（LAWYERS FOR LGBT AND ALLIES NETWORK）」の意義と活動
別府理佳子/Rikako Beppu (Squire Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo Horitsu Jimusho; LLAN)

LITIGATING FOR CHANGE: THE VALENTINE'S DAY CASES IN HISTORICAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Frank Upham (New York University)

LAWYERING FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD: LESSONS FROM TAIWAN AND US EXPERIENCES
陳昭如/Chen Chao-ju (台湾国立大学National Taiwan University)

WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: CANADA'S 20 YEARS OF EQUAL MARRIAGE
Alexander Dmitrenko (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Co-Chair of LLAN）

A NEW PARADIGM OF COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES?
A COMPARISON OF THE JAPANESE AND BRAZILIAN CASES
Daniel Machado (立教大学Rikkyo University)

10:00〜10:10
シンポジウムの趣旨
溜箭将之
アメリカにおける同性婚を巡る憲法訴訟や法的諸論点については、本学会でもこれまでのシンポジウムで取り上げ、立ち入った検討を行ってきた。そうした中で日本においても、2019年、同性婚が認められないのは憲法が保障する婚姻の自由や平等原則に反するとして国に損害賠償を求める訴えが、全国各地の地方裁判所で提起された。これらの裁判の中で最初の判決となった令和3年3月17日札幌地裁判決では、損害賠償請求こそ退けられたものの、同性婚を認めない法制度の現状は合理的根拠を欠く差別取り扱いにあたる、とする判断が下され、我が国での同性婚を巡る議論は新たな展開を見せている。他方で、立法府では自民党のLGBT理解増進法案も、野党のLGBT差別解消法案も国会への提出が見送られるなど、多様な性的指向や性自認をもつ人を広く包摂する社会や法制度が実現するまでには、さらなる時間と努力を要するものと予想される。
こうした状況を踏まえ、本シンポジウムは、まず、裁判から国会や地方自治体への働きかけ、さらに社会的な理解の促進から不当な差別の排除といった、これまでの取り組みを振り返った上で、今後の見通しを検討する。シンポジウム前半には、札幌地裁での訴訟において原告代理人を務めてこられた加藤丈晴弁護士、LGBTとアライのための法律家ネットワーク（LLAN）でLGBTへの理解促進と法的支援にかかわってこられた別府理佳子弁護士、そして同性愛・同性婚を巡る展開について日米比較をされてきたFrank Upham教授を招き、訴訟・社会運動・日米比較を交えて、多面的な検討を行う。
日本の状況は、他方で、世界的な同性愛・同性婚を巡る変化の中に位置づけることができる。1989年デンマークで異性カップルに対し、結婚した同性カップルとほぼ同じ権利が認められる立法が成立し、2001年にオランダで同性同士の結婚が認められて以降、同性婚を認める国々は、ヨーロッパ、南北アメリカ、オセアニア、南アフリカなどキリスト教諸国を中心に広がっていった。アメリカ合衆国でも2015年のObergefell判決により全国で同性婚が憲法上保障され、アジアでも台湾において2017年の司法院大法官判決を経て2019年の立法により同性婚が認められるにいたった。
シンポジウム後半では、こうした世界的な展開の中に日本を位置づけるべく、台湾、カナダ、ブラジルといった多様な国と地域における同性婚に関わる訴訟や研究に精通した実務家と研究者を招き、世界各地で進行する家族や家族法の多様化・多元化という広い視点から、同性婚とそれを取り巻く法と社会のあり方について検討を加える。陳昭如教授は、フェミニスト法学の観点から、台湾・アメリカ・カナダにおける同性婚を巡る展開について研究を進めてこられた。Alexander Dmitrenko弁護士は、カナダで同性婚訴訟に関わるとともに、現在LLAN共同代表として日本で様々な形でLGBT支援を行っておられる。Daniel Machado准教授は、日本と母国ブラジルの比較法を軸に同性婚と民法・家族法を研究されてきた。
こうした国内外の研究者と法曹関係者の報告に引き続き、会場との質疑応答も併せて、今後の同性婚訴訟とそれを支える社会運動の行方、また憲法や家族法を中心とした法理・法制のあるべき姿について、多面的・複眼的に考えてゆきたい。
In the past conference, this Society discussed the Obergefell case and related issues on same sex marriage in the U.S. Today, the issue is attracting renewed attention in Japan. In 2019, a number of LGBT couples sued the State in district courts in various locations in Japan seeking compensation for infringing their right to marry and equal protection under the Constitution by refusing to issue a marriage certificate. Sapporo District Court was the first to hand down a judgment on March 17, 2021. The Court held that the current regime that does not allow marriage for same-sex couple constitutes a discriminatory treatment without any reasonable justification. On the legislative front, however, attempts to introduce LGBT equality legislation have stalled. Neither the bill proposed by the Liberal Democratic Party nor the one proposed by the opposition parties was even presented to the Parliament for debate, leaving ones to anticipate a long road ahead before Japanese society and legal system become sufficiently inclusive for the people with diverse sexual orientations and identities.
Against this background, the morning session will first look at what LGBT supporters have done to increase public awareness and to eradicate discrimination, including litigation in court, working with the representatives in both local and national legislatures, as well as working with various stakeholders. The panelists will then discuss what can and should be done going forward. For this session, we have invited Mr. Takeharu Kato, who represented the plaintiffs in Sapporo District Court; Ms. Rikako Beppu, who supported LGBT people in various ways through Lawyers for LGBT & Allies Network (LLAN); and Professor Frank Upham, who have studied same-sex marriage litigation from comparative and sociological perspectives.
The developments in Japan can be situated in the global dynamics. Denmark was the first to recognize civil partnerships for same-sex couples in 1989, and the Netherlands was the first to recognize the same-sex marriage in 2001. These were followed by similar legislation in countries in Europe, North- and South America, Oceania, and South Africa, mostly with Christian tradition. The United States extended constitutional protection for LGBTQs nationwide in the Obergefell case in 2015, and Taiwan became the first Asian jurisdiction to formally recognize same sex marriage via Constitutional Court ruling in 2017 and special legislation in 2019.
For the afternoon session, both academic and practicing lawyers have been invited to share their expertise on same-sex marriage and related litigation and legislation in various jurisdictions including Taiwan, Canada, Brazil, and U.S. The discussion will involve broad examination of the increasingly diverse notions of families around the world, and the challenges in trying to transform the law and legal systems to accommodate such changes. Professor Chen Chao-ju have used the perspective of feminist jurisprudence to critically examine the developments in Taiwan, Canada and the United States; Mr. Alexander Dmitrenko was involved in same-sex marriage litigation in Canada, and is now acting as Co-Chair of LLAN in Japan; Professor Daniel Machado have applied the comparative study of the same-sex marriage and LGBTQ issues in Brazil and Japan to examine its broad implication to the civil law and family law, as well as the underlying notion of family and affection.
The presentation by the panelists will be followed by questions and answers session with the audience to consider the future directions of the same-sex marriage litigation and various initiatives to support social changes. It will also serve as an opportunity to discuss doctrinal and legislative future of the constitutional law, family law, and other areas of law that might affect the lives of both LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ citizens both in Japan and abroad.

10:10〜10:40
同性婚をめぐる日本初の憲法判断とその影響　−訴訟代理人の立場から−
JAPAN'S FIRST CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS - FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE COUNSEL
加藤 丈晴
2019年2月14日に、日本全国で13組の同性カップルが、同性間の婚姻を認めていない民法及び戸籍法の規定は違憲であり、国が必要な立法措置を講じていないことが、国家賠償法上違法であるとあるとして、国に慰謝料を請求する訴訟を全国4地裁（東京、大阪、名古屋、札幌）に提起した。そして同年9月には、福岡地裁でも提訴がなされた。これが、「結婚の自由をすべての人に」訴訟である。
2021年3月17日、これら5地裁の先頭を切って、札幌地方裁判所は、一連の訴訟における最初の判決を言い渡した。その中で、同裁判所は、主文では原告らの損害賠償請求を棄却したものの、判決理由中において、同性愛者に対して、婚姻によって生じる法的効果を享受することを認めない民法及び戸籍法の規定は、法の下の平等を定める憲法14条1項に違反するとの画期的な判断を行った。この判決は、同性婚を認めないことの違憲性についての日本で初めての司法判断である。
本報告では、まず、日本における同性パートナーシップ制度の広がりや、最近相次ぐ同性カップルの法的権利についての各種訴訟における裁判所の判断を紹介し、同性カップルの法的保護をめぐる日本の現状について概観する。
次に、「結婚の自由をすべての人に」訴訟の争点及び訴訟経過について、弁護団の訴訟戦略も含めて紹介し、その上で、札幌地裁判決の具体的な判断内容について、争点ごとに解説する。
札幌地裁判決は、同性カップルの法的権利の保護がまったくなされていない現状について、憲法14条1項に反すると判断したことは画期的であるものの、憲法24条は、異性婚について定めたものであり、同性婚について定めたものではないとして、同条の保障が同性婚にも及ぶとする原告らの主張を排斥した。また憲法14条1項との関係においても、婚姻によって生じる法的効果の一部ですらも認めないことは、その限度で同条項に違反すると述べており、異性間の婚姻とまったく同じ制度を同性間にも認めないと違憲だと述べているわけではない。
このような札幌地裁判決の限界が、今後の同性婚制度化をめぐる動きにどのように影響するのかについても、最後に触れることにしたい。
On February 14, 2019, thirteen same-sex couples across Japan filed lawsuits in four district courts (Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, and Sapporo) claiming that the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Registration Law that do not allow same-sex marriages are unconstitutional and that the State's failure to take the necessary legislative measures is illegal under the State Redress Act. In September of the same year, another lawsuit was filed in the Fukuoka District Court. We call these lawsuits "Marriage for All" lawsuit.
On March 17, 2021, leading these five district courts, the Sapporo District Court handed down the first judgment in the series of lawsuits. Although the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for damages in the main text, it made a landmark judgment in the reasons for the judgment that the provisions of the Civil Code and the Family Registration Law that do not allow gay persons to enjoy the legal effects of marriage violate Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates equality under the law. This decision is the first judicial decision in Japan on the unconstitutionality of not recognizing same-sex marriages.
In this report, I will first give you an overview of the current situation in Japan regarding the legal protection of same-sex couples, such as the spread of the same-sex partnership system and the recent court decisions in various lawsuits regarding the legal rights of same-sex couples.
Next, I will introduce the issues in the "Marriage for All" lawsuits and the progress of the lawsuit, including the litigation strategy of the legal team, and then explain the specific decisions of the Sapporo District Court, issue by issue.
The Sapporo District Court's decision was groundbreaking in that it ruled that the current situation in which the legal rights of same-sex couples are not protected at all violates Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, but it also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the guarantee of Article 24 extends to same-sex marriages, saying Article 24 provides for opposite-sex marriages, not same-sex marriages. In addition, in relation to Article 14, Paragraph 1, the court stated that not recognizing even a part of the legal effects of marriage violates this article to that extent, and it does not mean that it is unconstitutional not to recognize the exact same system for same-sex marriages as for opposite-sex marriages.
I would like to conclude by discussing how the limitations of the Sapporo District Court's decision will affect future movements to institutionalize same-sex marriage.

10:40〜11:10
CHANGING HEARTS AND MINDS, ONE PERSON AT A TIME
弁護士と外国法弁護士が共に活動するLLAN「LGBTとアライの為の法律家ネットワーク（LAWYERS FOR LGBT AND ALLIES NETWORK）」の意義と活動
別府理佳子/Rikako Beppu
日本における「婚姻の自由」・「同性婚」への道を支える社会活動の一例として、日本の大手法律事務所や外国法法律事務所が通常の熾烈な顧客獲得競争とは一線を画し、日本の弁護士、外国法弁護士や企業法務担当弁護士と共に活動するようになったきっかけや現在の活動を紹介する。LLAN「LGBTとアライの為の法律家ネットワーク（Lawyers for LGBT and Allies Network）」は2016年に東京のオランダ大使館にて開催された同性婚のイベントで出会ったロイヤー達の掛け声で団体として発足し、2017年2月には特定非営利活動法人（東京都）として設立された。
原資格国が日本か外国を問わず、所属が法律事務所や企業かを問わず、日本の法曹界の各方面からの法律実務家が共に活動することは非常に稀な現象である。同じ時期の2016年初めから活動を始め、私自身も創設メンバーと初代プレジデントを務めたWomen in Law Japan という女性法律家のインフォーマルなネットワーク（この団体は設立以来、法人化をしておらず継続的に活動をしている）以外には存在しないという状況である。そのような法曹界の現状のなか、LLANが設立され、活動を続けてきたことがどのような意義を持ち、どのような着眼点から日本における「婚姻の自由」と「同性婚」において現在まで、そして将来に向けての展望につき紹介をしたい。
１．設立当初の活動
２．2018年に発表されたLLANと在日米国商工会議所が主導した意見書の発行「日本で婚姻の平等を確立することにより人材の採用・維持の支援を」
３．その他の活動 − 企業や団体への研修を提供、毎年のEquality Galaイベントへの協賛と協力
４．一般社団法人Marriage for All Japan（MFAJ）と認定NPO法人虹色ダイバーシティーと共に「Business for Marriage Equality」とLLANで共同運営　

11:10〜11:40
LITIGATING FOR CHANGE: THE VALENTINE'S DAY CASES IN HISTORICAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE.
Frank Upham
I plan to begin with the social, political, and legal status of sexual minorities in Japan. I will describe the history of tolerance and contextual idealization of male same sex relationships during the Tokugawa era, the absence of religious objection to gay relationships, the infrequency of violence against gays, and the lack of criminalization of same-sex relationships. I will emphasize the contrast with the Christian West and the puzzle that Japan is among the last of affluent democracies to establish same sex marriage.
The second section puts the Valentine's Day cases in the context of other litigation aimed at protecting vulnerable groups, specifically wrongful discharge, contested divorce, gender discrimination in employment, and the Occur case. I will argue that Japanese citizens do not have a "weak legal consciousness" when it comes to politically motivated litigation and that Japanese courts are more aggressive in changing basic social norms than the famously activist American courts. The reason for the relative failure to recognize this activism is that Japanese courts deal with basic social norms and practices and, in contrast to American courts, have largely avoided direct challenges to the results of the democratic process.
The third section will analyze the same sex marriage cases, but not from a standard doctrinal perspective. (There will be others at the symposium more qualified to do that.) Instead, I will look at the nature of the political, moral, and social arguments in the plaintiffs' Complaints with a focus on how their rhetoric compares to that of similar litigation elsewhere. I will argue that, whereas the American plaintiffs and Obergefell stressed rights, the Japanese plaintiffs stressed pain. (Both included both arguments − it is a matter of emphasis, and it will be important not to essentialize either jurisdiction.) I will then analyze the Sapporo district court decision from this perspective and describe the State Redress Act format as a vehicle for social change. I will argue that this form of litigation gives Japanese courts an opportunity to change social norms but avoid a direct confrontation with the democratic branch of government.
Section IV concludes with speculation into whether the Sapporo decision will stimulate more non-litigation actions by Japan's LGB community.

11:40〜12:00 質疑応答　

12:00〜12:20 総会前半　
12:20〜13:50 昼休み
13:50〜14:00 総会後半　

14:00〜14:30
LAWYERING FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD: LESSONS FROM TAIWAN AND US EXPERIENCES
陳昭如/Chen Chao-ju
Both Taiwan and the US legalize same-sex marriage through Constitutional Court rulings in the wake of the vibrant marriage equality movement and its counter-movement, despite the numerous differences between the two countries (e.g., continental law vs. common law, centralized and abstract judicial review vs. decentralized and concrete review; a unitary system vs. federal system, an unrecognized state vs. a world leader). Both the Same-sex Marriage Case (Taiwan) and Obergefell (US) have since served as a source of inspiration for lawyers and activists in countries where same-sex marriage is not yet legalized, though neither of the two cases' majority opinions cites foreign or international law. In both countries, the focus of public debates and legal controversies has shifted from marriage to parenthood: Should the marital presumption apply to LGBT couples? Should LGBT couples be allowed to co-adopt or foster children? Should the access to reproductive technologies be extended to LGBT couples?
The presentation is an attempt to learn lessons from the two countries by exploring the following questions, which deal with the technique, goals, and politics of cause lawyering for marriage equality. I hope that these deliberations can serve as references for cause lawyers in Japan who aspire to equality for all.
1. How did cause lawyers shape the movement's agenda? What are the differences between them? How did their interaction with counter-movement affect their strategy and goals?
2. How did cause lawyers choose between litigation and legislative lobbying (or both)? What role did public votes play?
3. How and why did (or did not) cause lawyers link a nation's international status/reputation (e.g., leader of the free world; regional leader of gender equality) with the necessity of legalizing SSM?
4. What legal methods did cause lawyers apply? Can Originalism and textualism work for the proponents of SSM?
5. Is incrementalism unavoidable? (first comes legal recognition of civil union or the like, then marriage)
6. What are the pros and cons of separating marriage from parenthood in the pursuit of marriage equality? Is it a desirable path?

14:30〜15:10
WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: CANADA'S 20 YEARS OF EQUAL MARRIAGE
Alexander Dmitrenko
For decades, Canada has been a leader in LGBT rights. Indeed, the very first legal same-sex marriages were officiated in Toronto in January 2001. This year marks the 20-year anniversary of marriage equality, which makes Canada's experience valuable and insightful for a better understanding the (long-term) impact of marriage equality on LGBT community and society generally.
One of such outcomes is the gradual "normalization" of LGBT community into mainstream society, whereupon it no longer matters (in the eyes of the law and to the majority of population) whether you are LGBT or straight. This presentation will argue that "normalcy" is the final stage in the process/progress of LGBT equality and will describe Canada's journey through various stages, including crime, shame, tolerance, acceptance, celebration and, finally, normalcy. These stages are identified based on presenter's experience, activism, analysis, and research.
The presentation will then draw a comparison to the current situation regarding marriage equality in Japan, particularly focusing on the vital role the corporate sector can play in advancing LGBT rights. Based on international experience (e.g. from Canada and other jurisdictions with marriage equality), corporates are well placed to become LGBT rights advocates and ambassadors, including making the business case for marriage equality.
The presenter will conclude with sharing his work on the Viewpoint on Marriage Equality, which purports the business case for marriage equality in Japan. [As discussed during the morning program,] The Viewpoint has been endorsed by 125 corporates, both international and domestic, and has been specifically referenced by the Sapporo court in rendering its landmark decision. The presentation will conclude with expressing hope that Canadian experience and corporate voices will assist Japan to finally extend marriage equality rights to gay and lesbian couples.

15:10〜15:40
A NEW PARADIGM OF COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES? A COMPARISON OF THE JAPANESE AND BRAZILIAN CASES
Daniel Machado
At the same time that some same-sex couples are challenging the constitutionality of the ban on same-sex marriage as part of a social movement, other same-sex couples start to bring concrete disputes before Japanese courts. In 2020, Japanese courts rendered contrasting decisions: in one instance, courts recognized same-sex couples as a relationship analogous to marriage; in another instance, they rejected the analogy.
The objective of this study is to a) conciliate seemingly disagreeing legal outcomes into the larger picture of the Japanese doctrine of common law marriage, and b) illustrate the limits of using common law marriage as a means to legally protect same-sex couples in Japan.
This study is divided into three parts. In the first part, I give a brief introduction of the Brazilian case to illustrate how and why a new concept (namely, "homoaffective union") was coined to extend the legal protection of marital relationships to same-sex couples by judge-made law. In the second part, I introduce the two contrasting cases of Japanese law mentioned above while drawing a comparison with the Brazilian case. Following that, I give an overview of the historical development of the Japanese doctrine of common law marriage to shed light on the path-dependency of those recent court rulings which in Brazil was broken by the jurisprudential reception of the Constitution of 1988, namely, the reinterpretation of the constitutional meaning of family. In the last part, I analyze several issues that may arise when trying to address same-sex relationships by a heteronormative legal doctrine − for example, does the classical definition of infidelity apply to same-sex couples? How about formation requirements for common-law marriages? Recent cases have revealed particularities in same-sex relationships which call for revisiting legal principles to repeal or adapt them to same-sex couples.
I find the following conclusions: a) the lower court ruling which seems to stand out from the pack of recent favorable rulings does not necessarily conflict with current trends; b) the common-law marriage approach is clearly inadequate for protecting sexual minorities − in fact, it fails to protect those who are likely to be most in need; c) recognition of marriage equality is contingent on the repeal or adaptation of heteronormative legal rules regardless of whether it takes place through a common-law marriage approach led by the courts or through legislation.

15:40〜16:00 質疑応答