维基百科

隔离但平等：修订间差异

以互动方式浏览历史
←上一版本
删除的内容 添加的内容
可视化wikitext
标签：添加文件
不是只有歐美
 
（未显示2个用户的2个中间版本）
第1行：
[[File:ApartheidSignEnglishAfrikaans.jpg|[[南非]]過往的種族隔離告示牌，白人與[[有色人種]]被區隔但「平等的」對待|thumb|250px]]
'''隔离但平等'''（{{lang-en|Separate but equal}}）是源自於19世紀[[非裔美国人|美國黑人]][[种族隔离]]政策的一种表现形式，它试图透过为不同种族提供-{表}-面平等的设施或待遇，从而使实施空间隔离的做法[[合法性|合法化]]，遲至20世紀才取得平等性質的公民權。<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/1-segregated/separate-but-equal.html|title=Separate but Equal – Separate Is Not Equal|website=americanhistory.si.edu|access-date=2021-05-16|archive-date=2020-04-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200411003725/http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/1-segregated/separate-but-equal.html}}</ref>
 
20世紀末至21世紀初，部分歐美國家開始重視[[同性戀LGBT]]族群權益，起初推行的同性[[民事結合]]或[[同性婚姻]]專門法（不適用一般婚姻法）亦被喻為另一種形式的「隔離但平等」。<ref name="hammond2009">{{Cite news|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/04/21/2009-04-21_why_civil_unions_arent_enough_in_gay_marriage_debate_separate_but_equal_wont_cut.html|title=Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it|last=Hammond|first=Bill|work=Ny Daily News|date=2009-04-20|accessdate=2010-06-12|location=New York|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110925080454/http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/04/21/2009-04-21_why_civil_unions_arent_enough_in_gay_marriage_debate_separate_but_equal_wont_cut.html|archive-date=2011-09-25|dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/why_the_word_marriage_matters.html|title=Why the word "marriage" matters|work=Oregon Live|last=Kitch|first=Mary|date=2009-04-21|accessdate=2010-06-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171208003202/http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/why_the_word_marriage_matters.html|archive-date=2017-12-08|dead-url=no}}</ref>
 
== 历史背景 ==
第24行：
1953年，[[厄尔·沃伦]]成为第14任[[美国首席大法官]]，其领导下的美国最高法院（[[沃伦法院]]）掀起了美国历史上一场划时代的[[自由主义]][[宪政]]革命（Constitutional Revolution），通过一系列里程碑式的判决，终结了美国的种族隔离制度以及“隔离但平等”原则。<ref>E.g., Virginia [[Racial Integrity Act]], Virginia Code § 20–58 and § 20–59</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web|title=The Court's Decision - Separate Is Not Equal|url=https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/5-decision/courts-decision.html|website=americanhistory.si.edu|access-date=2019-10-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190820181923/https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/5-decision/courts-decision.html|archive-date=2019-08-20|dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=The Warren Court: Completion of a Constitutional Revolution|url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/73968804.pdf|date=|last=|first=|website=William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191003223936/https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/73968804.pdf|archive-date=2019-10-03|access-date=|dead-url=yes}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483|date=|last=|first=|language=en|website=Oyez|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190905074149/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483|archive-date=2019-09-05|access-date=2019-10-20|dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/515|date=|last=|first=|language=en|website=Oyez|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190805163032/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/515|archive-date=2019-08-05|access-date=2019-10-20|dead-url=no}}</ref>
 
1954年，沃伦法院在[[布朗诉托皮卡教育委员会案]]（Brown v. Board of Education）中，以9：0一致裁决：由于“黑白隔离政策表示黑人低劣”，所以原告和提出诉讼而处境与此相似的其他人，由于受所述种族隔离之害，已被剥夺了[[美國憲法第十四修正案]]與[[平等保護條款]]所保障的权利。<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Documents Related to Brown v. Board of Education|url=https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board|accessdate=2019-09-25|date=2016-08-15|work=National Archives|language=en|archive-date=2022-02-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220222184245/https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board}}</ref>此案的裁决突破了普莱西案对“隔离但平等”原则的认可，取消了在教育领域的种族隔离。此后最高法院又通过一系列判决，实质上否认了“隔离但平等”原则的合法性，被最終終結了美國實行逾一世紀的種族隔離政策。
 
1967年，在{{link-en|洛文诉弗吉尼亚州案|Loving v. Virginia}}中，沃伦法院以9：0一致裁决：[[弗吉尼亚州]]及其它16州[[反异族通婚法|禁止不同族裔通婚]]违宪，[[异族通婚]]合法化，保障了婚姻自由权。<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|title=Loving v. Virginia|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395|accessdate=2019-09-30|author=|date=|format=|work=|publisher=Oyez|language=en|dead-url=no|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161115152456/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395|archive-date=2016-11-15}}</ref>首席大法官厄尔·沃伦在法院多数意见中写道<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Loving v. Virginia|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1|language=en|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|access-date=2019-10-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191015003713/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1|archive-date=2019-10-15|dead-url=no}}</ref>：<blockquote>在我们的宪法下，一个人选择与其他种族的人结婚或者不结婚，完全取决于那个人本身，而这个自由是不能被各州所干涉的（The freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State）</blockquote>
检索自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/隔离但平等”