Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1216625,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1216625/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 382,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Prof.) Kamar",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 33,
        "legal_name": "Margaret Jepkoech Kamar",
        "slug": "margaret-kamar"
    },
    "content": "It is also clear that in the law of Kenya, the only marriage that is recognized is heterosexual. It, therefore, surprises one to know how the Supreme Court of Kenya arrived at its conclusion. Since, I am not a lawyer, it is my understanding that the court used the law. If the law in Kenya says that we only recognize heterosexual marriages, how did they decide that a group that does not exist in law itself should exist in associations? In my understanding, it was a very clear conflict between what the Constitution says and the conclusion of the verdict of the three. Madam Temporary Speaker, I say this because I participated in drafting our Constitution at the Bomas of Kenya. I was not in the drafting team, but I participated in the drafting and we debated many things, looking at what is good for this nation. We also looked at what keeps different communities together and even our culture. Many principles that are within the Constitution actually arose from our cultures. We have changed our cultures for many years, since pre-independence when we were a colony. Some cultures were lost, others preserved and some were recovered thereafter. Madam Temporary Speaker, before a big decision like that is made and announced to the country, it would have been very important to go back and look at the reason the Constitution has that Section, stating that marriage in Kenya shall be heterosexual. If discussions around the development of our Constitution came up with that conclusion, how can we rush to recognize something that has been disowned by the Constitution itself? Therefore, it was very surprising for some of us to hear that kind of conclusion. It would be important for this House to pronounce itself on a matter that is also touching the other arm of Government, so that all of us come up with a conclusion that is satisfactory. There is hue and cry all over, including churches. We are receiving calls from all over, that we must discuss this issue before it goes out of hand. The reason is that it is touching the very core of our youth. Our youth are at crossroads, wondering what this is supposed to be. If we allow it to continue without any check, what will it take the society to be? Our culture has already been eroded. Therefore, it is important that we demand that we look back at our Constitution as we discuss this. This is what the Supreme Court should have looked at. They need to give us an explanation on why they moved away from the Constitution. This is going to give"
}