（社説）夫婦別姓 矛盾解消に国会は動け/ EDITORIAL: Long wait for use of dual surnames in Japan needs to end now
（社説）夫婦別姓 矛盾解消に国会は動け
夫婦に同じ姓を名乗ることを強いる日本の制度の矛盾が、またひとつ浮かび上がった。これ以上放置することは許されない。一日も早い解消に向けて国会は動くべきだ。
米国で活動する映画監督の想田（そうだ）和弘さんと舞踏家の柏木規与子さんは２４年前、ニューヨーク州法に基づいて別姓のまま結婚し、婚姻許可証を得た。ところが３年前に日本で婚姻届を出したところ、別姓は認められないとして受理を拒まれたため、裁判所に救済を求めた。
驚いたことに国側は「共通の姓を決めないのだから２人に結婚の意思はなく、婚姻は成立していない」と主張した。
複数の国が絡む問題にどの国の法を適用するかを定める「通則法」には、「婚姻の方式は、婚姻挙行地の法による」とある。東京地裁は「外国にいる日本人が別姓のまま結婚することを法は許容している」と述べ、２人の婚姻は国内においても有効に成立していると判断した。当たり前の話だ。
ところが地裁は、日本で婚姻届が受理されなくても、２人の権利や法的地位に現実の危険や損害があるわけではないなどとして、２人の関係を公に証明する措置には踏み込まなかった。
それで済ませていい話だろうか。夫婦が暮らしていくうえで公的機関の証明が必要になる場面は多い。戸籍上他人のままだと、税の控除、成年後見の申し立て、相続などで配偶者として扱われない恐れがある。「結婚は有効だが、結婚による法的保護は受けられない」となれば、通則法は何のためにあるのかとの疑問がわく。
個人の権利や平等を重んじる観点から、海外では、同姓、別姓、あるいは２人の結合姓を選べるようにする動きが進む。国内でも、「自分らしく働ける社会の実現」を掲げ、企業経営者らが選択的夫婦別姓制度の早期導入を求める署名活動を行うなど、法改正は急務の課題であるとの認識は、立場を超えて様々な領域に広がっている。
こうした時代の流れに取り残されているのが自民党だ。
夫婦の姓を考えるワーキングチームをつくり、今月に２度会合を開いたが、本格的な議論は次の衆院選の後だという。多くの野党が別姓導入に賛成の姿勢を打ち出すなか、選挙の争点にならないよう、先送りを図ったのは明らかだ。結婚の条件として同姓になることを求められ、苦しみ、悩む人々の姿は、目に入らないとみえる。
法相の諮問機関の法制審議会が選択的別姓の導入を答申して２５年が過ぎた。人権がないがしろにされた２５年と言っていい。もう答えを出さねばならない。
連載社説
EDITORIAL: Long wait for use of dual surnames in Japan needs to end now
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
Comments
Post a Comment