TOKYO — A second Japanese high court ruled Wednesday that the government policy against same-sex marriage is unconstitutionalthe latest in a series of decisions supporting plaintiffs’ claims for marriage equality.

The Tokyo High Court called the ongoing ban “unfounded legal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” saying it violates the constitutional guarantee of the right to equality, as well as the dignity and gender equality of individuals. It was a clearer statement than the lower court’s 2022 decision that described the situation as “an unconstitutional state.”

The Sapporo High Court ruling in March said that not allowing same-sex couples to marry and enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples violates their fundamental right to equality and freedom of marriage. Wednesday’s ruling is the seventh overall to find the ongoing ban unconstitutional or nearly so, against just one district court decision that found it constitutional. Decisions can still be appealed to the Supreme Court.

In Wednesday’s ruling, presiding judge Sonoe Taniguchi also wrote that the purpose of marriage is not only to produce offspring, but also to ensure a stable legal status for partners, and that there is no rational reason to justify excluding same-sex couples . She said there was a common international consensus against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said Wednesday’s ruling was not final and that his government would continue to pursue other pending court cases.

Still, the winning streak has raised hopes among the LGBTQ+ community.

Plaintiffs cheered outside the courthouse Wednesday as their supporters held signs that read messages such as “Further progress toward marriage equality!” and “No more waiting for legal review!”

Makiko Terahara, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling, calling it historic. She and her fellow lawyers, in a statement, called on the government to take immediate action “to open the door to marriage equality”.

“I felt grateful to be alive when I heard the word ‘unconstitutional’ from the judge,” said Yoko Ogawa, a 60-year-old plaintiff. She said she worries about the lack of legal protections for her and her partner as they get older and “hope to see progress toward legalization as soon as possible.”

Their main obstacle, Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party coalition, lost its parliamentary majority in Sunday’s election and is likely to have to compromise on more liberal policies promoted by opposition parties, such as marriage equality, which is largely supported by the general public.

Japan is the only member of the Group of Seven industrialized nations that does not recognize same-sex marriage or provide any other form of legally binding protection for LGBTQ+ couples.

Six marriage equality lawsuits have been filed in five regions of Japan since 2019. LGBTQ+ activists and their supporters stepped up their efforts, and in 2023, the government passed a non-legally binding law that discrimination is unacceptable.

Hundreds of municipalities have issued partnership certificates as a solution for same-sex couples to reduce their hurdles in renting apartments and face other forms of discrimination, but they do not offer the same legal benefit as heterosexual couples, the report said. Wednesday’s ruling.

The court, however, rejected the seven plaintiffs’ request that the government pay them 1 million yen (about $6,500) each as compensation for damages suffered under the current system that does not recognize them as legally married.

On Tuesday, the United Nations Committee on Women’s Rights in Geneva published a report calling on the Japanese government to amend its civil code to allow the option of allowing married couples to keep separate surnames. He noted that the current one-surname law forces virtually all women to adopt their husband’s surname, another issue also blocked by the PDL for decades.

The UN committee also called on Japan to revise the male-only rule of succession under the Imperial Household Law to allow a female emperor.

Hayashi called the report “regrettable” and “inappropriate.” He said that the imperial succession was a matter of national foundation and was not part of the constitutional fundamental rights.

Yamaguchi writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press video reporter Ayaka McGill contributed to this report.