89. In simple terms, the onus shifts to the State to show that the current marriages laws are fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable. 90. How can anyone submit that let alone the government of the people submit that it is fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable to have the current laws? 91. Just to expand on Section 86 of the Constitution it is submitted that it is for the Respondents to justify that a particular law which the Court would have found that it infringes a right is legitimate. The burden of justification is one that falls squarely on the Respondents. Nyambirai v NSSA & See Another 1995 (2) ZLR 1 (S); State v Makwenyane 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) paragraph 102; National Coalitions for Gays & Lesbians Equality v Minister of justice 1999 (1) SA (6) (CC). 92. It is also important to underscore the point that in the second stage of enquiry the Courts depart from the generous broad and interpretation stated above to a strict one. 93. The above cases illustrate that. 94. In addition the question of whether an infringement of a right is a legitimate limitation of that right involves a far more factual enquiry than the question of interpretation. In this regard, appropriate evidence must be led to justify the limitation of a right in accordance with the criteria laid down. 95. Put in simple terms, a Court will not be able to make a decision whether the limitation is reasonable, necessary or justifiable in openness, democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom without evidence in data. See for instance Cameron J in State Page 30 of 46 Applicant's Heads of Argument in the matter between: Loveness Mudzuru & Another v Minister of Justice Legal & Parliamentary Affairs & 2 Others Case Number CCZ 79/2014 Prepared byTendai Biti Law