OPINION: Legalizing Common Use of Maiden Names Is Not a Full Solution

By Nobutoshi Kobayashi Commentary Writer Tokyo, Jan. 23 (Jiji Press)–Several years ago, when Yuichiro Mori, an associate professor of legal philosophy at Hokkaido University’s Graduate School of Law, was approved to conduct research in the United States, he and his partner decided to enter into a legal marriage. Bringing her with him under a de facto marriage would have been difficult under existing rules. Since Japanese law requires married couples to share a surname, they had to choose which family name to use. To arrive at what they saw as the fairest option, they flipped a coin and decided to adopt his wife’s surname. Reflecting on the experience of changing his name, Mori says: “I felt the frustration of being compelled to do something I didn’t want to do. It made me realize what women have effectively been forced to endure for so long.” Unnecessary Confusion While many have called for a selective separate surname system for married couples, one that would allow each spouse to continue using the surname they had before marriage, the administration of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is instead moving in a different direction. As an alternative, it plans to codify into law the common use of maiden names, a practice that is currently allowed only on a voluntary basis. Commenting on the proposal, Mori argues that a person’s name is “fundamentally a matter of identity,” and that the measure “does not provide a fundamental solution.” After returning to Japan, he filed for divorce, reverting the relationship to a de facto marriage and reclaiming his birth surname. Makiko Terahara, head of the legal team in a lawsuit seeking approval for married couples to use separate surnames, downplays the impact of expanding legal recognition for maiden names, calling it largely ineffective. “Nothing will change from the current situation if the (maiden) name is only listed alongside (the registered surname) on the resident certificate,” she says. She also warns that such a system could create unnecessary confusion. “Giving legal backing (to the common use of maiden names) would effectively endorse the use of dual names, which could complicate identity verification and increase the risk of identity theft, fraud and money laundering,” she says. The cost factor cannot be ignored. A government survey conducted in 2016 found that it was mainly large corporations that allowed employees to use their maiden names at work, while many small and medium-sized enterprises did not. The primary reason was that their personnel and payroll systems were not designed to manage multiple surnames for a single employee. Legalizing the widespread use of maiden names would therefore impose an additional burden on these unprepared companies. At a time when businesses are striving to raise wages across industries, a significant share of their financial resources would have to be diverted to upgrading internal systems. Maintaining the shared surname requirement for married couples at such a cost is, in this sense, clearly inefficient. Even so, Mori says, “We should deliberately stop short of outright opposition (to the government’s plan) and simply let them try.” He explains his reasoning as follows: “If it becomes clear that legalizing the common use of maiden names does not resolve the harmful effects of the single surname system for married couples, people will widely come to understand that the only real solution is to adopt a separate surname system.” 600,000 Waiting to Marry In 2025, the number of births in Japan is projected to have fallen below 670,000. At the same time, the share of children born outside of marriage remains low, reflecting a deeply rooted social norm that couples should marry before having children. Still, the number of marriages itself has dropped, standing below 500,000 per year. According to the general incorporated association Asuniwa, an estimated 600,000 men and women are postponing marriage as they wait for the introduction of a selective separate surname system for married couples. Naho Ida, the organization’s chief representative, argues that “if separate surnames are allowed, many people will marry and the number of children will increase.” Many couples in de facto marriages hesitate to have children because they feel there is not enough legal protection for their families. As they wait for reforms to the legal framework, the years pass. If people could marry without being required to share a surname, it would be easier for them to envision their future, formalize their relationships, and decide to have children. In 1996, the Legislative Council, an advisory body to the justice minister, recommended allowing married couples to retain separate surnames. At the time, only two male lawmakers from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party supported the change. Today, however, many male lawmakers have expressed support, indicating a significant shift in political attitudes. A system that allows married couples to choose separate surnames would be an important step toward ensuring that existing fundamental right–such as the right to choose your own identity, including name–are fully respected in practice. At the same time, it would function as a form of deregulation, providing relief to people who have been discouraged from marrying because of the requirement to share a single surname. Under such a system, couples who prefer to use the same surname after marriage, just as they are currently required to do, would remain free to make that choice. Expanding, rather than restricting, the range of options available to couples is the most natural and reasonable approach. END [Copyright The Jiji Press, Ltd.]