@Wendz
I am no learned friend.
However that does not bar me from commenting on mundane things like this one.
No one should seek to write the constitution through the courts, - as some statements here may suggest - that the constitution did not go further to state this way or that way.
Even the recent judgment on Kadhis courts bold as it was, stated categorically that it is not the business of courts to determine what is in the constitution or otherwise.
However subject to the constitution (all relevant sections), if anybody were to discriminate against another person, just because they are gay, then they would be contravening the constitution.
Gays can coexist but such liaisons would never be recognized as a marriage/family as defined in section 45.
All said and done in my view the word SEX as utilized in section 27, can only be construed to mean Male or Female. Nowadays there are amaphrodites though!!!
Issues of sexuality and sexual orientation are not covered here or anywhere I have seen in the proposed Constitution.
An alternative view well argued is welcome.
Isuni yilu yi maa me muyo - ni Mbisuu