No. 1373 Implementation of Separate Surnames for Married Couple
Recently the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) held its leadership election. One of the contentious discussions was the system to allow married couple to choose between sharing one surname or using separate one. Their real intentions are dubious, but that reflects increased social opinions to approve such a practice. For instance, the Keidanren, the Japan Business Foundation, has agreed to launch the system. The Japanese society has been proven to be shifting to a fresh direction.
LET’S CONTINUE OUR CAMPAIGNS TO ATTAIN THE GOAL!
The system is to allow married couple to choose between sharing a single surname or using separate names independently. The current legal norm specifies under Article 750 of the Civil Code, saying ‘when a man and a woman marry the surname must be either one of a husband or of a wife’. Every couple must have a single, unified family name.
Opposition from the conservatives
Voices to revise the Civil Code go back to the year of proclamation of the current Constitution, which provides abolition of a ‘feudal family system’. After ratification of the UN Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Japanese government has been frequently criticized of negligence. In 1996, pushed by the heightened social pressures, the Legislative Council of the Ministry of Justice Council proposed introduction of the selective system for married couple on family name(s).
But the conservatives, including Mr. Abe Shinzo, fearing a possible implementation of the system, established a ‘national committee to oppose multiple surnames for married couples and defend family bondage’ to organize harsh campaigns against the idea. Thus, the relevant bill failed in being presented for parliamentary debates.
In 2004 the ruling LDP’s Project Team on Amendment of Constitution declared that Article 24 should be revised as ‘the norms should be reviewed on equality of men and women in marriages and domestic lives from a viewpoint to evaluate priorities of families and communities.’ That means the LDP explicitly prefers a family or a community as a social unit.
Social movements have strenuously been staged to attain a goal of having separate surnames among married couples. Several lawsuits have been filed, too. In 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that the existing Civil Code is constitutional as in the case of 2021, while, on the other hand, it advised that ‘the system should be debated in the Diet.’
Meanwhile, the government remains passive, saying that ‘this issue relates to families across the entire society, people have different opinions, and it needs right understanding of people from broader strata.’
61.0% of people are in favor
A social trend shows a result that 61.0% of people are in favor, who say that ‘there is no need to unify to a single surname and couples can use separate surnames’ (according to a survey held by the National Institute on Population and Social Security Research belonging to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the Nationwide Family Affairs Investigation). Positive opinions are expanding.
A point is that many of people in favor of legislation simply want to keep their original family name. To unify into a single surname or not to change the original surname – it is not a question of imposing pains on individuals.
Article 24 of the Constitution specifies dignity of individuals and demands essential equality between men and women. The conservatives’ contentions with many unreasonable criticisms represent their hope to return to a ‘feudal family system’, prevalent in the era before WWII when strong nationalist governance ruled people.
The issue is not only a problem of women. Let’s continue campaigns until the system is legislated.
先日行われた自民党総裁選の争点として、選択的夫婦別姓制度の導入が上がった。本気度は疑わしいが、制度導入を認める声が増え、経団連が導入を提言するなど、社会の変化を裏付けた形だ。
選択的夫婦別姓制度は婚姻に際し、夫婦どちらかの姓にするか、別々のままかを選べるようにすることだ。現行は、民法７５０条で「夫婦は、婚姻の際に定めるところに従い、夫又は妻の氏を称する」と定めており、必ずどちらかの姓に統一する「夫婦同姓」となっている。
保守勢力の反対で
民法改正を求める声は、新憲法制定による「家制度」廃止にさかのぼり、女性差別撤廃条約批准後は、国連からたびたび勧告を受けた。世論の高まりを背景に１９９６年、法制審議会が選択的夫婦別姓制度の導入を答申した。
しかし、答申によって導入されるのではと危機感を抱いた安倍晋三氏ら保守勢力が「夫婦別姓に反対し家族の絆を守る国民委員会」を設立して激しい反対運動を展開し、法案提出は見送られた。
２００４年、自民党憲法改正ＰＴは24条改正（案）に「婚姻・家族における両性平等の規定は、家族や共同体の価値を重視する観点から見直すべきである」とし、家族や共同体を社会の単位にする方向を明確にした。
選択的別姓の実現を求める運動は粘り強く続いている。裁判も取り組まれ、最高裁は２０１５年、21年といずれも現行民法を「合憲」とする一方、「制度の在り方は国会で議論されるべき」とした。政府は「社会全体における家族のあり方にも関わる問題であり、国民の間に様々な意見があることから、より幅広い国民の理解を得る必要がある」と消極的だ。
導入賛成61・０％
社会の考え方は、「同姓である必要はなく、別姓であってもよい」への賛成が61・０％（厚労省の国立社会保障・人口問題研究所による全国家庭動向調査）になるなど、認める声が広がっている。
確認しておくべきは、当事者の多くはあくまで生まれもった姓を変えずに名乗りたいと考えているに過ぎない。同姓にするのか、改姓しないのかという、選択肢を認めることは他者に痛みを求めるものではない。
憲法24条は、個人の尊厳と両性の本質的平等を定める。難癖をつけて反対する保守勢力の真意は、国家に重きを置いて統治する、戦前の「家制度」への回帰だ。女性だけの課題ではない。制度導入へ運動を進めよう。
英訳版↓
No. 1373 Implementation of Separate Surnames for Married Couple
Recently the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) held its leadership election. One of the contentious discussions was the system to allow married couple to choose between sharing one surname or using separate one. Their real intentions are dubious, but that reflects increased social opinions to approve such a practice. For instance, the Keidanren, the Japan Business Foundation, has agreed to launch the system. The Japanese society has been proven to be shifting to a fresh direction.
LET’S CONTINUE OUR CAMPAIGNS TO ATTAIN THE GOAL!
The system is to allow married couple to choose between sharing a single surname or using separate names independently. The current legal norm specifies under Article 750 of the Civil Code, saying ‘when a man and a woman marry the surname must be either one of a husband or of a wife’. Every couple must have a single, unified family name.
Opposition from the conservatives
Voices to revise the Civil Code go back to the year of proclamation of the current Constitution, which provides abolition of a ‘feudal family system’. After ratification of the UN Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Japanese government has been frequently criticized of negligence. In 1996, pushed by the heightened social pressures, the Legislative Council of the Ministry of Justice Council proposed introduction of the selective system for married couple on family name(s).
But the conservatives, including Mr. Abe Shinzo, fearing a possible implementation of the system, established a ‘national committee to oppose multiple surnames for married couples and defend family bondage’ to organize harsh campaigns against the idea. Thus, the relevant bill failed in being presented for parliamentary debates.
In 2004 the ruling LDP’s Project Team on Amendment of Constitution declared that Article 24 should be revised as ‘the norms should be reviewed on equality of men and women in marriages and domestic lives from a viewpoint to evaluate priorities of families and communities.’ That means the LDP explicitly prefers a family or a community as a social unit.
Social movements have strenuously been staged to attain a goal of having separate surnames among married couples. Several lawsuits have been filed, too. In 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that the existing Civil Code is constitutional as in the case of 2021, while, on the other hand, it advised that ‘the system should be debated in the Diet.’
Meanwhile, the government remains passive, saying that ‘this issue relates to families across the entire society, people have different opinions, and it needs right understanding of people from broader strata.’
61.0% of people are in favor
A social trend shows a result that 61.0% of people are in favor, who say that ‘there is no need to unify to a single surname and couples can use separate surnames’ (according to a survey held by the National Institute on Population and Social Security Research belonging to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the Nationwide Family Affairs Investigation). Positive opinions are expanding.
A point is that many of people in favor of legislation simply want to keep their original family name. To unify into a single surname or not to change the original surname – it is not a question of imposing pains on individuals.
Article 24 of the Constitution specifies dignity of individuals and demands essential equality between men and women. The conservatives’ contentions with many unreasonable criticisms represent their hope to return to a ‘feudal family system’, prevalent in the era before WWII when strong nationalist governance ruled people.
The issue is not only a problem of women. Let’s continue campaigns until the system is legislated.
October 2, 2024