The Pink Triangle List

The Phoenix LGBT community must be applauding the Phoenix City Council’s decision to establish a domestic partners’ registry but those concerned about their right to privacy may want to rethink their jubilation.

LGBT members will now be placing their trust in the City of Phoenix to maintain their name on a list that would subject them to the authority of Arizona’s largest municipality.

Although the City of Phoenix is expected to protect the list, it will certainly know who’s on it and should the council ever change hands or the list be “exposed,” LGBT members may find their privacy compromised. We wonder if the Arizona ACLU reared its head in opposition prior to the council taking its vote.

The compilation of a list by a government entity also revisits the issue of whether or not any type of personal relationship status should be entangled in church-state jurisdictionary matters. Paying the City of Phoenix $50 for a domestic partner certificate allows anyone on the council to call the shots. It’s also a symbolic gesture to recognize the City of Phoenix as the authority of any such matters.

A “certificate” recognizing a personal relationship choice may seem like a good way to circumvent the will of the voters (Proposition 102), but LGBT domestic partners may want to reconsider placing their names on a “pink list” that may eventually become black.


Comments

  1. Wow, this is an amazing bit of spin with dog whistle politics thrown in and just a touch of genocidal threat.

    Well done, Sonoran Alliance. Going to be putting up a picture of a noose with a post suggesting that it might be a bad idea to check “African-American” on the 2010 census form – because you never know when shadowy forces using a government list might come for ya’!

  2. Klute,

    I understand the author’s point of the post but what I don’t get is how liberals scream and complain about keeping government out of the bedroom but then fall all over themselves to allow the government to keep a list of domestic partners!

  3. They’re giving gays a choice in a terrible situation. If the state would allow homosexual civil unions this wouldn’t be an issue.

    You’re making a talking point out of an issue that conservatives in the state legislature have the power to rectify. Why not jump on that instead of criticizing? You can’t have it both ways. No wonder no one takes this blog seriously.

  4. Langdon,

    If you can’t understand the difference between not wanting the government to dictate what’s permissible between two consenting adults and the desire to have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else – well, I just can’t help you.

  5. Don’t forget that traditional heterosexual couples are already on a list maintained by the government. The last time I checked, the State of Arizona issues marriage certificates. Why is it the State’s business to oversee who marries anyways? There are plenty of couples who consider themselves married in the eyes of the church who never checked in and sought permission with the State of Arizona.

  6. Y’know, this posting (“Pink list/Black list”) comes dangerously close to a threat.

    And, your definition of this as a “church-state” issue speaks volumes about the flaws in your argument.

    Since when does a church have a right to say anything about who gets to visit a loved one in a hospital?

  7. Republican for Janet,LD-6 Republican Precinct Committeeman and Phx C C Memeber, Maria Baier gave the liberals as much help as she could by skipping this vote. Thanks for your conservative voice in government Maria-NOT.

  8. Speaking of lists, maybe we should stop posting comments on this site (and other blogs) because they are keeping an extensive list of names, email addresses, IP addresses, websites and, quite possibly, political leanings.

    Sonoran Alliance: Remove the email field from your comments. Don’t keep a list. And don’t BS us how it is required for comments… because it isn’t.

  9. Wooden Teeth says

    The list will not be a secret, it will be a public record, as most government documents are, particularly for a municipality.

  10. The article and comments I’ve read on this do not lead me to believe it is going to only be a registry for GLBT people. One person on azcentral pointed out that the largest group of single individuals in the state are hetero-sexual people over the age of 65.
    If that is true, to assume someone is gay or lesbian by virtue of his or her name being on the list would be somewhat presumptuous.

  11. Veritas Vincit says

    Another *list* for Homeland Security. Germany and Stalin loved lists.

  12. How on earth does this “circumvent the will of the voters?” I thought Prop 102 merely defined marriage as a union between a man and a women, it did not obligate municipalities to be bigotedly act in a cruel and heartless manner.

  13. Phoenix is a bit late in joining civilized cities in having a domestic partner registry, so it looks like common sense is coming to semi-civilized backwater cities, too.

    Obviously anyone joining a registry knows that he or she is making a public record.

    On a broader sense, I am amused by those people who think the concept of privacy still exists today. Our real difficulties are not with the government, which is too incompetent (see: entire Bush administration) to do any harm with what they know, but with the corporations and businesses we freely give our most private information to.

    Google knows everything about you. But of course their corporate motto is “Don’t be evil.” Just like Dick Cheney’s.

  14. Veritas Vincit,

    So did Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy. Your point?

  15. Insurance Salesman, not! says

    If I were a company that sells life insurance, I would get the list just to see what gays expect hospital visits in the future. Then I would flag them for a physical if they ever tried to purchase life insurance. That is a good example of what a dumb list can do. The gays should just see a paralegal to have the proper paperwork. It is that simple.

  16. Besides being illegal what you suggest wouldn’t save an insurance company anything so you have no idea what you are talking about. Good for you that you are not in the insurance business. Hopefully “the gays” will likewise avoid you bad advice.

  17. Libertarians are better... says

    As a former Republican who left the party because of it’s hate campaign against gays and lesbians I became a libertarian.

    You people are truly disgusting. Threatening LGBT Americans with genocide. I KNEW this was coming! I said it for the longest time. The Republican Party of today always hides behind the veil of “freedom and liberty” but then supports public lynch mobs with the hopes of exterminating LGBT Americans in concentration camps.

    We all know that is what your party truly wants… So $#!^ you! Stop turning Arizona into Alabama! And GET THE $#!^ OUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE!

Leave a Reply