The Nepalese Supreme Court on June 18 ruled the country must extend full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court in 2023 ordered the country’s government to allow same-sex couples to temporarily register their marriages, but this recognition did not guarantee full marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

“Since the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 decision, dozens of same-sex couples have legally married in Nepal under a temporary registration system,” said the Blue Diamond Society, a Nepalese LGBTQ advocacy group, in a June 19 press release. “However, the lack of national legislation has created uncertainty and fear for couples who want to register their marriage.”

“Many couples have been denied marriage licenses by local clerks who claim there is no national law instructing them to register marriages of same-sex couples,” further noted the Blue Diamond Society. “Other couples have been forced to file legal cases and endure costly legal battles simply to register their marriage. And even among couples who have registered their marriages, there is concern that their marriages may not be respected when it comes to adoption, inheritance, and other important protections they need to care for their families.”

Thailand and Taiwan are among the countries that have extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The Japanese Supreme Court in March said it will consider six marriage equality lawsuits. The South Korean marriage equality movement in recent years has gained momentum with several court rulings that recognized same-sex relationships.

The Blue Diamond Society in its press release notes the June 18 decision is the fourth time the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of marriage equality.

“Today is a day of celebration for LGBTQIA+ people and families across Nepal,” said Blue Diamond Society Executive Director Manisha Dhakal. “The Supreme Court has once again affirmed that same-sex couples deserve the same dignity, respect, and legal protections as any other couple.”

“We are grateful for the court’s continued leadership,” added Dhakal. “With a newly elected government more committed than ever to equality, now is the time to complete this important work by updating Nepal’s civil code and ensuring marriage equality is fully and clearly protected in law.”

Dhakal in the press release said the Blue Diamond Society “looks forward to working constructively with the government of Nepal, lawmakers, and civil society partners to ensure the court’s vision of equality is fully realized.”

“The Supreme Court has spoken clearly,” Dhakal said. “The government has expressed its support for equality. We are encouraged by that commitment and urge Parliament to act swiftly so that every LGBTQIA+ couple in Nepal can access marriage with certainty, dignity, and respect. Nepal has already taken a historic step. Now it is time to finish the job.”

On Oct. 30, 2025, a same-sex couple in South Korea filed a petition with the country’s human rights commission after a public institution denied marriage leave to one of the men and later reduced his pay and performance bonus for taking time off for their wedding ceremony. The commission last month completed its investigation and continues to consider the case.

The petition comes as South Korea’s same-sex couples have won a series of legal victories in recent years, even though the country does not extend marriage rights to them. Courts have increasingly been asked to decide whether existing laws and workplace policies can extend equal treatment to LGBTQ people, often in the absence of legislative change.

The employer’s policy granted marriage leave, but it did not define marriage or specify who could claim the benefit. After the employee submitted a wedding invitation and requested a brief leave for a ceremony with his same-sex partner, the institution denied the request and treated his absence as unauthorized.

The South Korean Supreme Court ruled on July 18, 2024, that denying dependent health insurance benefits to same-sex couples while extending them to opposite-sex couples amounted to discriminatory treatment. The court said the unequal treatment infringed on human dignity and the right to pursue happiness.

South Korea’s marriage equality movement has evolved gradually, moving from social taboo and legal nonrecognition toward greater public visibility and limited judicial victories. 

In 2004, a same-sex couple unsuccessfully sought a division of assets under a de facto marriage. Nearly a decade later, filmmaker Kim Jho Gwang-soo and his partner, Kim Seung-hwan, applied to register their marriage, but South Korean courts rejected their bid, as well as subsequent attempts by same-sex couples to gain legal recognition.

In February 2023, the Seoul High Court ruled that the National Health Insurance Service must extend dependent health insurance benefits to same-sex partners, marking a landmark legal victory for LGBTQ couples. The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision made it final.

Under South Korean law, a de facto marriage generally refers to a couple who live together and hold themselves out as married without formally registering their union. While such relationships may receive limited legal recognition in certain circumstances, a marriage is not legally recognized unless it satisfies legal requirements and is registered with the government.

In a ruling made public on June 5, a Seoul court found a same-sex couple had built a life partnership similar to a common-law marriage and deserved legal protection. The court ordered a third party whose affair led to the relationship’s breakdown to pay 10 million won ($6,611.59) in damages.

The court, however, said existing law did not allow it to recognize the relationship as a common-law marriage, underscoring the legal limits that same-sex couples continue to face.

“There is no evidence that the plaintiff and the former partner held a wedding ceremony or revealed their relationship to acquaintances outside their families,” said the court. “From September 2019, when they shared their finances, or at the latest from June 2023, when they lived with the plaintiff’s family and received engagement rings from the plaintiff’s parents and were recognized as a couple, they shared an emotional, physical and financial relationship with a mutual intent to marry, forming a life partnership similar to a common-law marriage.”

On May 31, 2024, South Korean lawmakers introduced the country’s first marriage equality bill. Former Justice Party member Jang Hye-yeong proposed the legislation that 12 lawmakers from across the political spectrum co-sponsored. and co-sponsored by 12 lawmakers from across the political spectrum. The legislation failed later. 

While consensual same-sex relations are not criminalized in South Korea, marriage equality remains unrecognized. Reports suggest many LGBTQ people continue to live with limited public visibility.

Recent opinion surveys suggest public support for marriage equality in South Korea has declined. 

A 2025 Hankook Research poll found that 31 percent of respondents supported extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, down from 36 percent in 2021. A separate Gallup Korea survey found that 34 percent backed marriage equality while 58 percent opposed it, reversing gains in public support and returning attitudes to levels seen nearly a decade ago.

The report attributed the decline in support to South Korea’s broader social and political climate. 

Activists told the publication that far-right mobilization, heightened political tensions, and growing online radicalization among some young men had likely contributed to the shift. They also argued politicians routinely cite a lack of public consensus to delay measures such as the Life Partnership Act and the Marriage Equality Act, describing the argument as an excuse for inaction.

Kiyong Shim, an activist with Chingusai, a Korean gay rights group, told the Washington Blade that the marriage leave dispute illustrates the challenges same-sex couples continue to face in South Korea. Shim said the country’s Civil Act contains no provision that explicitly prohibits same-sex marriage, but that marriage registrations by same-sex couples are refused as a matter of administrative practice.

“Because their relationships have no legal standing, exclusion arises in nearly every area of daily life: marriage leave, family allowances, medical decision-making, inheritance, housing, and more,” said Shim. 

He said the marriage equality movement is advancing along two tracks: one is public campaigning, lectures, workshops, and community networking centred on the Marriage for All Korea campaign and the second is through litigation. Fourteen same-sex couples are now plaintiffs in various lawsuits that have been before South Korean courts since 2024.

Shim told the Blade that change is also beginning to take root in South Korea’s judiciary, pointing to the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling that recognized dependent health insurance benefits for same-sex partners.

“Those holding political responsibility — in the legislature, the executive, and beyond — continue to turn away from the rights of LGBTQ+ people,” said Shim. “LGBTQ+ individuals remain exposed to discrimination and hatred in everyday life, and many live by painfully concealing who they are. This is precisely why the campaigning cannot stop, and why the work of organizing must continue.”

Shim told the Blade that public opinion is moving in a more favorable direction, albeit gradually. He said attitudes toward homosexuality, sexual minorities, and marriage equality have steadily become more accepting.

“The problem lies in politics,” said Shim. “In Korea, the forces driving anti-homosexuality sentiment are largely conservative Protestant church groups, and these church groups are deeply entangled with politicians in the ruling Democratic Party. As a result, even within the ruling party, this issue is difficult to address. So we are in an asymmetric situation: the judiciary and public opinion are moving forward, while the very political actors charged with legislation and administration remain stationary.”

Taiwan, Nepal, and Thailand have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples. Shim told the Blade there is a growing sense that South Korea is falling behind.

“Society’s perceptions shift most deeply when the fact that LGBTQ+ people are right beside us becomes a natural part of daily life, but this cannot be left to those individuals alone,” he said. “The conditions that make coming out possible must be built by allies together with the community — building workplaces, schools, families, and neighborhoods where discrimination and hatred need not be feared.” 

“What Korea needs right now is exactly this kind of broad, everyday solidarity,” added Shim. “Change in the law and change in daily life have to move together, and that is why the work of campaigning and organizing must not stop. There are already many same-sex couples in Korea living as families, caring for one another. The question is not whether they exist — it is when the state will finally recognize this reality in law.”

China’s Supreme People’s Court on May 8 issued a rare response to a petition involving LGBTQ discrimination.

In a surprising response; it discussed sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The response also mentioned workplace discrimination, public humiliation, and school bullying, language considered uncommon from China’s legal system.

The response stemmed from a proposal submitted by a postgraduate student in Qingdao through China’s xinfang petition system on March 25, urging the court to establish clearer judicial standards against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Six weeks later, the Supreme People’s Court Research Office issued a written reply.

The Research Office is an internal legal and policy body within the Supreme People’s Court. It studies legal issues, drafts judicial guidance, and responds to legal inquiries submitted through official channels. Its responses do not carry the same legal weight as a judicial interpretation or court ruling.

“The opinions and suggestions you raised are of great value,” reads a translated version of the Supreme People’s Court Research Office response. “In order to thoroughly implement the Constitution, Civil Code, Employment Promotion Law and other legal provisions, and effectively protect citizens’ personality rights from infringement, the Supreme People’s Court has guided local courts at all levels to handle a number of related cases, and through typical cases and other forms has clarified adjudication rules.”

The response stated that courts may determine public insults, defamation and, discriminatory conduct targeting sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as infringement of personality rights. It also said employers treating individuals differently in hiring, employment, transfer or dismissal based on those characteristics could face employment discrimination claims. Schools could also bear legal responsibility for improper discipline or bullying involving students based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, according to the response.

“It’s not a systematic change from the authorities recognizing LGBTQ rights,” said Renn Hao, an LGBTQ activist in China. “However, it’s an informal statement from the Supreme Court. According to a scholar researching LGBTQ legal cases in China, courts are recognizing more cases involving LGBTQ discrimination and same-sex partners through their verdicts.”

China decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in 1997 and removed homosexuality from the country’s list of mental disorders four years later. Chinese law, however, does not recognize same-sex relationships.

Public advocacy involving LGBTQ issues also remains tightly controlled. Authorities in recent years have continued restricting community organizing, public events, and online expression involving sexual minorities.

Discussions involving LGBTQ issues are also frequently censored on Chinese social media platforms. 

Activists and advocacy groups say Chinese authorities in recent years have removed online content, shut down LGBTQ student group accounts and restricted public discussion involving sexual minority issues. After the Supreme People’s Court response began circulating online, related posts and articles were also removed from some Chinese platforms.

“It may still be too early to fully assess the long-term impact, as this development has only just happened and the situation is still unfolding,” said Xiaogang Wei, a Beijing-based LGBTQ rights activist, filmmaker, and founder of the China Rainbow Collective Foundation. “Although the reply is not legally binding, it represents a rare form of institutional acknowledgment of SOGIE-related discrimination in China. For Chinese LGBTQ people and advocates, this could become a meaningful reference point for future legal advocacy, public communication, and community awareness.”

Wei said the rapid removal of related posts and articles limited the development’s broader public impact and underscored how fragile LGBTQ visibility remains in China. 

“This is why we believe it is important to continue sharing verified information and ensuring that this development is not erased from public understanding,” Wei said.

Chinese courts in recent years have also heard a number of LGBTQ-related employment discrimination cases, despite the absence of explicit nationwide protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In one notable case, the Supreme People’s Court in 2018 formally recognized “equal employment rights disputes” as a legal cause of action, allowing some discrimination-related cases to proceed through the courts.

Chinese courts have previously handled several LGBTQ-related disputes involving employment discrimination, custody, and so-called conversion therapy. In 2024, a Beijing court drew attention after recognizing visitation rights for a child involving a same sex couple, a decision activists described as a milestone for LGBTQ families in China.