Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." The Court reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, which held the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from marrying. The Court again applied this principle in Turner v. Safley, which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry. Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process Clause. It cannot be denied that this Court's cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners. The Court, like many institutions, has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part. This was evident in Baker v. Nelson, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question.

Question

Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." The Court reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, which held the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from marrying. The Court again applied this principle in Turner v. Safley, which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry. Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process Clause. It cannot be denied that this Court's cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners. The Court, like many institutions, has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part. This was evident in Baker v. Nelson, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question.

Use the excerpt from the Supreme Court majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, written by Justice Kennedy, to answer the question. Which element in the excerpt suggests that stare decisis, or court precedent, was consulted? (1 point) Responses the discussion of various constitutional principles the discussion of various constitutional principles the discussion of specific claims and evidence from earlier cases the discussion of specific claims and evidence from earlier cases the reference to earlier, lower court decisions the reference to earlier, lower court decisions the reference to past cases that ruled on the topic of marriage the reference to past cases that ruled on the topic of marriage

Answer 1

The element in the excerpt that suggests that stare decisis, or court precedent, was consulted is the reference to past cases that ruled on the topic of marriage. The excerpt mentions previous Supreme Court cases such as Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley, which established the right to marry as a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause. This suggests that the Court considered previous decisions and precedent in reaching its conclusion in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Answer 2

whats the answr

Answer 3

The element in the excerpt that suggests that stare decisis, or court precedent, was consulted is the reference to past cases that ruled on the topic of marriage.