Same-sex marriage has gained momentum in Asia-Pacific societies over the last decade. While some countries have legalized marriage for same-sex couples, others have opposed this policy measure despite growing public support for it. Previous studies on morality issues have noted the influence of religion, particularly Catholicism, on policy trajectories on same-sex marriage. Yet, these studies have primarily drawn their conclusions from Western societies. Religion alone cannot fully explain the contrasting policy patterns and outcomes in Japan and Taiwan: deeply secularized Japan remains highly reluctant to extend LGBTQ+ rights, which are minimal, whereas less secularized Taiwan has become a regional pioneer in extending marriage rights and civil protections to LGBTQ+ people.
Drawing on interviews with political actors and LGBTQ+ activists and a qualitative content analysis of party, policy, and media documents, this paper compares the political debates and policy processes on same-sex marriage in Japan and Taiwan. The analysis shows that the diverging policy trajectories in these countries depend not only on the strength of religious organizations but also on distinct institutional opportunities. In Taiwan, strong judicial review mechanisms, high voter turnout, and the weak influence of religious lobbies on major political parties have favoured the translation of public support for LGBTQ+ rights into consistent policy outcomes. In contrast, in Japan, the limited policy impact of judicial oversight, low turnout, and the close linkages between religious organizations and the hegemonic Liberal Democratic Party have constrained the extension of LGBTQ+ rights.
Theoretically, this paper tests and refines the framework elaborated by Western scholars to explain policy outcomes on morality issues, demonstrating that institutional opportunities outweigh societal religiosity in shaping the politics of LGBTQ+ rights. Empirically, it contributes to the comparative study of LGBTQ+ rights by analyzing a region that has received limited attention from current scholarship. In doing so, it sheds light on the complex interplay between religious groups, political elites, and judicial authorities, while also highlighting the salience of other cultural factors, particularly the homo-nationalistic narratives sustained by key political actors, that have delayed the extension of LGBTQ+ rights in Asia-Pacific societies.
