this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
306 points (99.4% liked)

World News

38977 readers
2499 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Tokyo High Court ruled on Wednesday that Japanese laws that do not recognize same-sex marriages violate the country's Constitution. This is the second time a high court in the country has handed down such a decision.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The plaintiffs appealed the ruling.

…because they’re petty, joyless assholes.

Edit: I made a mistake. I thought the plaintiffs were the people against gay marriage. Whoops! See below for a more thorough explanation.

[–] Uruanna@lemmy.world 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

You're misreading it (unless you're against gay marriage I suppose) - the article tries to break it down, but it's still a mess.

The plaintiffs are the pro same-sex couples that complained that the state is wrong to refuse same-sex marriage. They appealed to get a better ruling than what they got at first. The second ruling is still not everything they wanted, but it's still much better than before the complain.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 6 points 5 days ago

OOOOOOH. Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I did misread it. I thought the plaintiffs were against gay marriage.

[–] ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

yep, it wasn't just a plain tiff.