Talk:Recognition of same-sex unions in Japan

Untitled
Sidebar and Japan That Japan allows its nationals to marry abroad does not mean at all that Japan recognizes conditionally same-sex marriage conditionally. Japanese legislation does not seem to confer any domestic rights onto those who marry abroad. It simply allows the printing of a certificate. Even Saudi citizens can marry abroad. Therefore, Japan should be dropped from the list of recognizing countries on the sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finedelledanze (talk • contribs) 11:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Untitled
Shouldn't we at least wait to include Inabe until the city assembly has actually voted on the manner? Since it's an ordinance, it still needs to pass the assembly and we shouldn't assume it will automatically start on July 1. Deviantdreamer (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as requested, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Japan → Recognition of same-sex unions in Japan – For consistency with other countries that have not yet legalized same-sex marriage. 174.114.211.255 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – same sex marriage is currently not legal in Japan. Move to proposed title per PRECISE.  CookieMonster755 ✉  18:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Isseubnida (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Converting partnership certification system information to table form
The Partnership Certification System section has a large swath of paragraphs listing jurisdictions that have adopted or announced or discussed such a system in order of the dates of adoption or announcement or discussion. What would people here think of reformatting much of that material into table form? There could be a table for places where a system is in effect with columns for the location, the effective date, the footnotes, and Notes for a few for which brief details are currently given. After all that information has been pulled out of the prose, we could see whether there's enough left for it to make sense to add another table for places where such a system has been announced.

There are plenty of lengthier chunks of information in that text presenting the historical narrative that should be left in place while the places that are merely listed are pulled out of it.

Whoa now I see there are lists under the heading "Lists": prefectures, municipalities, future partnership systems. Are these, in the aggregate, the same places that are in the running text? Then much of this is redundant. Either way, again, it seems to me that table treatment would be usefulmore organized, and it would allow readers to sort on both name and date. Largoplazo (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Why?
can somone tell me why i mean around April  23rd every year they have a pride parade in tokyo so why is it illegal Camillz (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: split out "Partnership oaths in Japan" as new article
I would like to suggest splitting out the "partnership oaths" or "registered partnerships" section as a new article. The article is very long with the tables, and it is only going to increase in size with more municipalities and prefectures adding such partnership registries throughout next year. RayneVanDunem (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Panda2018 0 (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @RayneVanDunem Support a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)