Judgment No. CCZ 12/2015 52 Const. Application No. 79/14 regardless of his or her personal condition. The factor of a girl maturing earlier than a boy said to be the rationale for the differences in the treatment of girls and boys authorised by the impugned legislation, is of no consequence in the determination of the effect of s 78(1) of the Constitution on the validity of the legislation. Section 78(1) entitles a girl and a boy to equal protection and treatment before the law. It is regrettable that the respondents failed to appreciate that the rationale they advanced in support of the difference in the treatment of girls and boys formalised by the impugned legislation, is the old stereotypical notion that females were destined solely for the home and the rearing of children of the family and that only the males were destined for the market place and the world of ideas. See Stanton v Stanton 421 US 7(1975). The contention by the respondents is contrary to the fundamental values of human dignity, gender equality, social justice and freedom which the people of Zimbabwe have committed themselves to uphold and promote through legislation governing the interests of children. Fear was also expressed that, if s 22(1) of the Marriage Act and any other law or custom which authorises child marriage were declared unconstitutional and struck down, men would impregnate girls and not bear the responsibility of having to marry them. The short answer to the concern is that once it is accepted, as it should be, that ss 78(1) and 81(1) of the Constitution guarantee and protect the right to equality of treatment before the law to a girl and a boy without provision for exceptions, the circumstance of a girl getting pregnant does not disentitle her from the enjoyment of all the rights of a child enshrined in s 81(1) of the Constitution.