Answer:
Explanation:
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (/ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel), is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.[2][3]
Between January 2012 and February 2014, plaintiffs in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee filed federal district court cases that culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges. After all district courts ruled for the plaintiffs, the rulings were appealed to the Sixth Circuit. In November 2014, following a series of appeals court rulings that year from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, the Sixth Circuit ruled that it was bound by Baker v. Nelson and found such bans to be constitutional.[4] This created a split between circuits and led to a Supreme Court review.
Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.[5] This established same-sex marriage throughout the United States and its territories. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out,[6] and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker.[7]
Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by law, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.[3]
<span>True. With rioting happening in Berlin in 1848 and rioters demanding a constitution, it became clear that the only way to avoid further destruction and calamity was for the Prussian king Frederick William IV to promise a constitution. He upheld his end of the bargain to end the riots.</span>
In the Biblical sense there is a difference, although I have seen heated debates on this question even among Christians. Most ancient languages have two words for these "entities". In the Hungarian Bible translations usually the same word is used for both as in the time of the first Hungarian Bible translation there was no Hungarian word for "spirit" - it was created on in the 18th century. This caused a lot of confusion. In Greek you have psyche and pneuma, in Hebrew you have nefesh and ruach - you can find a lot of discussion on the difference. Here I put very briefly my rudimentary idea about this. I do not believe that there are three substances: matter soul and spirit. My impression is that the soul is a kind of "interface" between spirit and matter (at least in a certain sense). Theologians will explain it more precisely. Nevertheless soul is the center of the conscious self where decisions are made (soul = life in the New Testament). There are several other aspects which I would comment - but I am not sure whether your question is intended in this direction.
Answer:
true...
Explanation:
the Sun's rays shine most directly at the equator, called an “equinox.
