Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 425079,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/425079/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 263,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Odhiambo-Mabona",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 376,
        "legal_name": "Millie Grace Akoth Odhiambo Mabona",
        "slug": "millie-odhiambo-mabona"
    },
    "content": "One is the definition of “cohabitation”; we need to be very clear about the timeframe. Whereas, we want to protect women, when I was practising there were women whom sometimes were not very honest about their situation. If we want to protect the marriage institution, I know Christians have complained cohabitation is unchristian. Even if it is unchristian, we are developing different marriage systems here, the Hindu, Islamic, Christian and others. We have a new category that affects many young people. This is where people stay together, especially in urban areas, and do not pay dowry or get marriage certificates. You find that some of them stay for even seven years, and people take them as husbands and wives. What I would suggest is that we bring in an amendment to put in clear number of years that will define a marriage as opposed to a girlfriend and boyfriend staying together. The other issue I have is the definition of “dowry” as contained here, because it is very un-african. It states “dowry shall be given in consideration of” this is a term in contract law that is used when you are purchasing goods and services. A marriage is not a contractual obligation; it is a social issue. Whereas everybody has a right to pay dowry and have dowry paid for them, if they so wish, it should not be seen as a purchase of a human being. When you use the words “in consideration of”, it appears that we are suggesting that women should be purchased, and if it is in the Indian set-up, then it is the man who would be purchased. Because of that connotation, I actually refused to be paid for any dowry even though I have been married for seven years. This is because I am not worth any money. On the issue of definition of “monogamous marriage”, it presupposes that all marriages begin as non-monogamous and then they are converted. I suggest that we introduce various amendments that would tighten it, because there are marriages that begin as monogamous, and if the man or woman want to change it, even though women are not given that leeway--- There are marriages that can be potentially polygamous, but we cannot start on a premise where we think that we define “polygamous marriages” on the presumption that they were all non-monogamous."
}