The Supreme Court on Dec. 16 turned down a complaint by women that a Civil Code provision that does not allow a married couple to use different surnames violates the Constitution.
The plaintiffs were not demanding that all couples use separate surnames. They were instead arguing that people should be given the freedom not to change their surnames when they marry if they so wish. They said that this freedom relates to the very dignity of individuals — a core principle of the Constitution. People who want to have the same surname as their spouse should of course be free to do so if they so wish. But the system of marriage should also be open to people who do not want to use the same surname, the plaintiffs argued. Why did their complaint go unheeded by the top court justices?
A majority of the 15 justices sitting on the Supreme Court's Grand Bench said that allowing the choice of different surnames for married couples is not irrational and urged the Diet to discuss the matter. However, the plaintiffs had turned to the court because the majority of lawmakers in the Diet did not understand the issue. The Supreme Court was simply passing the buck. Behind the ruling, I believe, was the bureaucratic consideration of the justices that a ruling declaring the same-surname provision unconstitutional was certain to trigger strong reactions from those in power and would cause trouble in the future. The top court is not qualified to call itself a watchdog of the Constitution if it is unable to protect the freedom of a minority against the ignorance and prejudice of the majority. Anyway, this ruling seems to reflect the problem of conformism prevalent in Japanese society.