Video Interview, Bill Pritchard, October 20, 2012

  • KEVIN INDOVINO: --is that the audience is not going
  • to hear my questions to you.
  • So in your response, kind of set up what I asked you.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Thank you.
  • I'm glad you said that.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: If I'm like, "Tell me
  • about the political climate in the 1990s Bill."
  • Your answer would be, "You know, in the 1990s,
  • the political climate was."
  • BILL PRITCHARD: So in finished form,
  • this will be kind of like there'll
  • be thematic components of your video
  • and there will be snippets from various people talking
  • about the nineties, and then it will be me
  • "blah, blah, blah, blah," and then Tim "blah, blah, blah."
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Yeah, right.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: OK, cool.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: But setting it up for the audience is key
  • so they understand what the hell you're talking about.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Makes sense.
  • CREW: I'm rolling, sir.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: You're rolling?
  • OK, so first of all, I need you give me
  • on camera the correct spelling of your first and last name
  • and how you want to present it on screen.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Bill Pritchard, P-R-I-T-C-H-A-R-D.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: OK.
  • We title you.
  • How should we title you?
  • Former president of GAGV?
  • Former city councilman?
  • I mean, we'll probably put both actually.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Well I mean, if you want to put both--
  • I don't know, because the council was more recent
  • than the GAGV president.
  • But you don't have to put both.
  • That's an awful lot of--
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Well, I've done that with other people.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Well if you want to do that, then yeah, fine.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: We'll just put president
  • of GAGV nineteen-whatever and then also city council
  • member these years.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Sure, yeah.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: OK.
  • So let's start there.
  • I want to talk about your perception of what
  • the 1990s were like here in Rochester, what we were facing,
  • challenges socially and through the media, and some
  • of the challenges that you particularly went through
  • with the Gay Alliance.
  • What was the fight?
  • BILL PRITCHARD: In the nineties, it
  • was the big fight for domestic partnership.
  • I mean, I laugh about it now.
  • Because when you think about how far our community has come--
  • and just the other day, the high court in New York state
  • ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act
  • is unconstitutional.
  • And who would have thought back in the early to mid-nineties
  • that that kind of decision would have been rendered.
  • We were fighting for domestic partnership, but also
  • recognition within organizations, institutions,
  • and political parties.
  • I mean, we weren't San Francisco.
  • We weren't New York City where just
  • by virtue of a critical mass of gay men and lesbians
  • they took over wings of the Democratic Party
  • for the most part.
  • We certainly had people involved here,
  • but not to the not to the significant numbers
  • that they had in those cities.
  • So we were fighting for respect, fighting
  • for a place at the table.
  • Obviously, it was much easier within the Democratic Party
  • than it was in the Republican Party at the time and probably
  • still.
  • But those were the kinds of things.
  • It seems like a much simpler time then in some ways.
  • But it really wasn't.
  • Because even the gains that we thought we had made--
  • and when I say thought we made, they were real.
  • But there was still an undercurrent of concern
  • and a lack of acceptance on the part of many,
  • even some of our allies who we thought
  • were our political and community allies.
  • When push came to shove, they weren't
  • quite there with as much as we thought they were.
  • And those are were of the struggles
  • that we faced in the nineties.
  • They were growing pains.
  • I think that's the best way you can characterize our political
  • and community experience in the nineties, growing pains.
  • We were given birth at Stonewall, but here
  • in Rochester anyways, that birthing process--
  • we were still toddlers until the 1980s
  • when Tim Mains was elected as the first openly gay elected
  • official in New York state.
  • I would say, if you want to continue with the growing
  • analogy, the nineties-- we were probably elementary school,
  • middle school kids.
  • And now, we're college graduates.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Sticking with this, also
  • with the nineties, some of the things
  • we were all starting to see in the media,
  • there seemed to be all of the sudden almost a backlash
  • against gays and lesbians in the country starting in 1992
  • with Pat Buchanan's speech at the Republican Convention.
  • And then we had the Rush Limbaugh's.
  • And locally, we had Lonsberry.
  • And you being actively involved with the Gay Alliance,
  • talk to me about what we were facing particularly
  • in the media.
  • And how were you and particularly the Gay
  • Alliance trying to combat that?
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Oh, I can remember politically
  • and then just overall in the community,
  • we faced a great deal of backlash in the gay community
  • from all sources.
  • I think it was a delayed reaction, certainly
  • in Rochester to a degree, a delayed reaction to the gains
  • we made in the 1980s across the country,
  • not just here in Rochester.
  • And we started becoming more visible as a community,
  • as individuals within our community
  • started becoming more visible in holding positions of power
  • and influence in the community.
  • By 1992, I would say it all culminated
  • in that very hateful, nasty, ugly Republican Convention,
  • in Pat Buchanan's vitriol that he spewed,
  • the hate that he spewed, he and others at that convention
  • as the right as you recall.
  • Pat Buchanan had posed a very serious challenge
  • to then President George Herbert Walker Bush.
  • And it was because the right, the far right,
  • didn't think that the first President Bush was truly one
  • of theirs, one of their own.
  • While it was a very challenging period
  • to live through-- that summer and certainly
  • that convention late in the summer of '92,
  • It was important for it to have happened.
  • Because the backlash started to experience its own backlash.
  • Because like-minded and kind-minded
  • people began to realize that they had more in common
  • with each other than with these individuals on the far right
  • who weren't just against gays and lesbians
  • but who were against people of other religions
  • from them and skin color.
  • So bringing it here to Rochester, I mean, of course,
  • you had the campaign with Bill Clinton.
  • And we organized-- I think for the most part our community
  • really here in Rochester and, of course, around the country
  • really fell behind Bill Clinton in that race.
  • And in 1993, I can remember Sue Cowell and myself.
  • And I think Rich Ognibene was involved too.
  • We helped organize the march.
  • I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself.
  • We had a victory party for Bill Clinton.
  • And I think that was at Carpe Diem, we did actually.
  • We had a celebration of Bill Clinton's inauguration
  • at Carpe Diem.
  • Mark Mackey helped organize that.
  • And there a bunch of other people.
  • The Gay Alliance was heavily involved, The Rochester Lesbian
  • and Gay Political Caucus, which is no longer--
  • but I was chair of that for four years--
  • were very involved.
  • What I was starting to get ahead of myself was later that year
  • the March on Washington, the 1993 March on Washington.
  • It was Sue Cowell and myself, and I
  • think it was Rich Ognibene helped organize
  • the local presence there.
  • And we had rented a few buses, two or three buses, I remember.
  • We had a good, solid contingent going down.
  • We had Bill Clinton in the White House.
  • Unfortunately, the gays in the military issue
  • came out of the starting gate and it was fumbled badly.
  • Now, I'm not one of those people who places
  • all the blame on Bill Clinton.
  • Obviously, he was there and because of his position
  • he was involved and he shares blame.
  • But that was done to really throw him off balance
  • and to get him in political ways.
  • So it was a euphoric time in '93.
  • Again going on with the March on Washington,
  • Bill Clinton was in the White House.
  • We were living our own version of an '84 Morning
  • Again in America with the Reagan campaign,
  • or at least we weren't living it then.
  • But that was our version in '93.
  • Because in spite of Don't Ask, Don't Tell,
  • we thought that things were going to be so much better.
  • And they were to a degree.
  • But I know what came out of some of the very
  • strident political hatred directed
  • at Bill Clinton for a number of reasons.
  • It empowered others.
  • The political differences of opinion
  • that those had with Bill Clinton from the other party
  • emboldened other people who had been waiting in the wings
  • to take on the gay and lesbian political movement
  • and really try to push us back--
  • some of the very hateful demonstrations along the parade
  • route, for example, some of the things that were being
  • said in the media by Bob Lonsberry and Brother Wease.
  • Brother Wease-- I think he was making some--
  • most of us didn't think they were funny--
  • gay comments.
  • He was probably doing at the time--
  • I think anyways in hindsight, he was doing it just for ratings.
  • And I don't think he believed it personally.
  • I also don't think Bob Lonsberry meant
  • a lot of the stuff he said personally.
  • I think they were, along with Howard Stern, those pioneers
  • of the shock jocks who would say anything for ratings.
  • And then in their personal lives in some cases--
  • I'm not so sure about those two but I suspect--
  • they weren't nearly as bad as they pretended to be on radio.
  • I think the challenge today is that group of pioneers
  • unfortunately--
  • I'm not sure that they ever thought this would happen.
  • You've got some people on in media today
  • who I really think they believe what they say when I
  • think of Savage and Glenn Beck.
  • I really do believe that they embrace the hatred,
  • and bigotry, and narrow mindedness
  • that they say on the radio and television.
  • But going back--
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Yeah, let me just pull you back.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: I'm wandering, I'm sorry.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: I want to look at it more
  • from our local approach--
  • again, the Lonsberry stuff and the Brother Wease stuff.
  • And you being on the Gay Alliance,
  • talk to me about some of that hatred
  • that we experienced here locally.
  • And how did you work to again combat that?
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Well see, the hatred that we experienced
  • took many different forms.
  • Some of it was very overt, and again at the gay parade
  • each year where there would be these very vocal demonstrators
  • holding up very nasty signs and saying some nasty things.
  • There were those that felt--
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Let's take this back.
  • Let me get this fly out of your face.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: I mean, back in those days,
  • I think programs like the Speakers Bureau
  • for the Gay Alliance which in some ways
  • was the beginning of this significant program at the Gay
  • Alliance for gay youth, and the outreach,
  • and the programs that are held in schools,
  • and the gay in the workplace, and trying
  • to get employers to be sensitive to gay and lesbian LGBT issues.
  • That all started, I think, from the Gay Alliance
  • and the programs we had had for years.
  • I think in the nineties, as we were experiencing
  • some of the backlash that to our successes of the eighties,
  • the good news is that as a community we didn't back down.
  • I know this sounds a bit cliche, but we walked out of the closet
  • and we weren't going to let anybody push us back inside.
  • You had in '93 Tim Mains ran for mayor for the first time.
  • And there were certainly elements of homophobia in that.
  • But it goes back to what I said earlier in that there were
  • people who were with us, at least they said they were with
  • us whether it was in the political context
  • or the community context, but that even as late as '93--
  • eight years after Tim had been elected to city council--
  • and he was a very vocal member of city council.
  • He wasn't a shrinking violet by any means--
  • that you would have thought that there
  • would have been an enhanced comfort
  • level among some people having a gay mayor.
  • But it was evident in '93 that there were people who--
  • that wasn't that wasn't the reason for all the opposition
  • that Tim faced in that race.
  • But that was some of it.
  • And it came from some corners of our community
  • and Democratic Party that were a bit surprising.
  • I think the Gay Alliance's early investments in its youth
  • program and the equality in the workplace
  • has paid dividends now.
  • They didn't start in the nineties,
  • but their growth started, their really getting out
  • into the community and going beyond just the four
  • walls of the Gay Alliance, and going to the straight community
  • instead of asking the straight community to come
  • to our gay pride celebration, coming to our Gay
  • Alliance for a PFLAG meeting or some other kind of discussion
  • group type of thing.
  • We were going to them.
  • We started going out to the community.
  • And I think that's what--
  • if you ask for one of the defining characteristics
  • of the gay and lesbian movement in Rochester in the nineties,
  • that's certainly one of them.
  • That's when we truly began to branch out and go
  • to the community instead of having them come to us.
  • We escaped the closet between Stonewall
  • and the early eighties, certainly the late seventies
  • with Harvey Milk.
  • We left the house in the nineties.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: One thing I want to get just a quick point
  • from you is again leading up into the nineties
  • and what we were trying to do in the nineties.
  • We had the whole AIDS thing in the eighties.
  • That really almost pushed us out of the closet.
  • Any thoughts on the whole AIDS pandemic and crisis,
  • and really coming to a climax in the nineties particularly
  • here in Rochester.
  • How'd that really push us out of the closet and really maybe--
  • I hate to say it, but-- pave the way for us
  • to become more politically involved.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Oh, absolutely, and I think across the country,
  • but particularly here in Rochester.
  • It goes back to my comment earlier about critical mass.
  • We just don't have the numbers of gays and lesbians
  • they have in New York, and San Francisco,
  • and other large cities.
  • So like other cities, but it was more important for us
  • that we used the crisis that began to develop in the 1980s
  • in dealing with AIDS--
  • we used that in a myriad of ways.
  • I think your product many closer together in a social context.
  • But it also energized us politically.
  • When you think about people, particularly in the nineties,
  • I was away for five years.
  • I went in the Air Force then I went
  • to graduate school for a year.
  • I left in the summer of 1985 and I didn't move back
  • until the fall of 1990.
  • I missed-- and I'm sorry that I did in many ways--
  • I missed that period when the political movement in Rochester
  • just caught fire.
  • And it was because, significantly,
  • not exclusively, but significantly,
  • because of the coming together to fight
  • for programs for people living with AIDS, for funding,
  • for compassion.
  • When you think about people who were involved in the nineties
  • when I started getting involved, Sue Cowell, John Altieri,
  • of course, Tim Mains had been on city council,
  • and others like them.
  • They had been involved politically earlier.
  • Especially Sue Cowell, her presence was gained--
  • Bill Valenti-- was through the AIDS crisis,
  • and fighting it, and opening up AIDS Rochester
  • on the second floor of the Tara's,
  • which is where it began.
  • And some good came out of it.
  • Some good came out of the AIDS crisis.
  • A lot of good things actually have come out
  • of battling the AIDS crisis, coming together as a community,
  • cutting our political teeth in ways
  • that, I think, eventually would have happened.
  • Because something else would have occurred and we would have
  • had to respond to.
  • But it was fortunate.
  • Again you try to look for a silver lining everything
  • if possible.
  • And if you want to say anything, if this is the best way it,
  • it's the the best way to put it, but if anything good came out
  • of the AIDS crisis and the community's battle against it
  • in the eighties was that we were prepared
  • in the nineties as a community to fight back
  • that backlash that did start to occur over
  • our gains in the eighties.
  • Had it not been for the experience
  • that we had already begun to gain
  • in our political experience, we may not
  • have been prepared as well as we were
  • as the nineties progressed.
  • And it would have been a different outcome.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Let's move towards
  • your political involvement and getting
  • appointed to the city council.
  • When you arrived on city council,
  • can you talk to me a little bit about the atmosphere
  • in terms of gay activism or legislation
  • that needed to be dealt with?
  • Because by the time you got on city council
  • it was slightly different.
  • There weren't a lot of gay issues
  • that were being presented.
  • I know there's a question in here somewhere.
  • Let's take it back.
  • You know what?
  • Let's talk about Tim Mains.
  • Let's first talk about Tim Mains being
  • the first openly gay elected official in New York
  • state how he paved the way for a lot of gay legislation,
  • domestic partnerships obviously being probably the biggest.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Tim Mains, as we all
  • know because it's now in the history books--
  • Tim Mains was our first openly gay elected official
  • in New York state and one of just a handful
  • across the country.
  • I mean, it was just a very different time then.
  • And it was a very, very tough battle.
  • Now, I had already left Rochester.
  • I was already in the Air Force.
  • And at that time, I was actually in Colorado in training school.
  • But I've heard the stories again and again.
  • And of course, the race that he barely won in 1985--
  • and most certainly, there was a great deal
  • of homophobia and resistance to Tim
  • being an openly gay man serving on the city council.
  • But he fought hard.
  • And he a good group of people behind him.
  • Sue Cowell was his campaign manager.
  • And of course, they won.
  • And then at that point in time, Tim, one of the first--
  • by being there, and by setting an example,
  • and by having a presence and a place at the table,
  • he broke ground for everybody else in Rochester
  • who came after him.
  • And he frankly helped it make it a bit easier across New York
  • state and other parts of the country.
  • I'll say it again.
  • He was one of a very small number of people
  • across the country who were openly gay
  • and in elected office.
  • So his success in Rochester did reverberate
  • in one degree or another across this country
  • and certainly in New York state.
  • By the time I came on board--
  • and I was appointed in August of 2003--
  • the big issues for the gay and lesbian community at that time
  • had been addressed and addressed successfully.
  • In 1994, I was working for Tim Mains
  • actually, not in city council yet, that was about nine years
  • to go, but domestic partnership.
  • And as I said earlier, it almost makes you smile.
  • Because nobody thinks that hardly of domestic partnership
  • anymore because it's all about gay marriage.
  • But it was a big thing then.
  • And while we were several years behind the west coast
  • for example in getting domestic partnership passed,
  • it was a huge thing here in Rochester.
  • And it wasn't easy, it wasn't that easy at all.
  • And I can only imagine--
  • well, I can imagine and I also know
  • because I was with Tim every day during that period.
  • I mean, I've mentioned about how the nineties were a period when
  • we were learning that some of the people who'd been with us
  • weren't quite with us as strongly as we thought,
  • politically and in the community.
  • He experienced that firsthand with his colleagues
  • on city council and the people in the administration.
  • There was there was a fair amount of resistance.
  • For the public registration, I believe
  • it was a 6-3 vote so that was better, either 6-3 or 7-2.
  • But for conveying domestic partnership benefits
  • to city employees, that was a 5-4 decision, it barely passed.
  • And that hurt Tim.
  • And frankly, it hurt the relationship
  • with a couple of those members of city council
  • who were part of the four with the gay community
  • because it was a shocker.
  • There was one councilman in particular
  • who had just won for re-election in '93
  • with the wholehearted support of the gay community.
  • And then lo and behold, here we are a year later,
  • less than a year later, and he's saying
  • no to domestic partnerships for city employees.
  • It was a shocker but we were getting used to it.
  • Because it wasn't the first time we
  • were shocked by someone we had thought
  • was a colleague in arms, if you will.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Just for my own information, who was that?
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Gary Muldoon.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Muldoon, right, OK.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Yeah, but there were people who were with us.
  • There were people who were with us.
  • And this is important to remember, I believe anyways.
  • I mean, you had people like Tim all across this country
  • pave the way for people like me who came into office years
  • later.
  • But we can never forget those people
  • who were around the Tim Mains and the Harvey Milks.
  • I mean, there was this fantastic movie about Harvey Milk
  • and about his--
  • it was about his political career, and of course
  • right up to the very end.
  • But what I believe that the film did
  • a very good job of capturing was that Harvey Milk
  • didn't do it in a vacuum.
  • Harvey Milk had many supporters, gay and straight,
  • and some very dedicated people on his team
  • who were with him through those many unsuccessful bids
  • for elected office.
  • And I think it's important to remember
  • the allies that Tim had in '94.
  • Had it not been for Lois Geiss supporting
  • domestic partnership, it would not have happened.
  • Tim deserves the credit.
  • Because Lois didn't bring the issue as a legislative issue.
  • Tim brought it to the table and he forced the discussion.
  • It was not necessarily the easiest conversation
  • for his colleagues to have, even those who
  • eventually would support it.
  • But he deserves tremendous credit for that.
  • But we cannot forget Lois Geiss.
  • And there is a little known fact about the history
  • of that whole period and how he eventually
  • got both pieces of that domestic partner legislation,
  • the public registry that anyone regardless of where they lived
  • could come and participate in, and of course
  • the extension of domestic partner benefits
  • to city employees.
  • And it's one of the little snippets of history.
  • Again, it's not too well-known.
  • Hopefully, it'll make it to the final cut here.
  • But Lois Geiss, in her heart, she knew what was right.
  • But nonetheless, she was still conflicted.
  • Because it was a fairly new concept.
  • And she wasn't sure and for reasons
  • that only Lois will ever know.
  • It certainly wasn't out of homophobia, but perhaps
  • it was out of the lack of real--
  • I mean, she'd worked with Tim, she knew other gay people.
  • But for whatever reason or reasons,
  • there was still this hesitancy.
  • Lois reached out to Don Belack And it
  • was because of their relationship
  • through democratic politics dating back to the seventies.
  • And it was in a very candid face-to-face conversation
  • with Donald.
  • It was that conversation that convinced Lois that this
  • was the right thing to do.
  • And with Lois came enough votes.
  • If it hadn't been for Lois Geiss, it wouldn't have passed.
  • But if it hadn't have been for Tim Mains bringing the issue up
  • in the first place to the table, that would have never
  • happened either.
  • But I use that not to diminish any one person's involvement
  • in the issue, but to rise up and shed light
  • onto the many people around who did, who were there.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Part of this also is not only city council,
  • but you also had to convince Mayor Johnson to sign off
  • on it.
  • I remember his speech after city council voted it in,
  • him taking a long time with that speech
  • until he finally said, "Oh yeah by the way, I will sign it."
  • But tell me about the process of getting him on board with it.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Well, Mayor Johnson was a unique individual
  • who, for all of his accomplishments--
  • and there are many when he was head of the Urban League
  • and he was with the CETA funding back in the seventies.
  • I mean, without even having been involved then,
  • I am sure that he caught a hell of a lot of flack
  • for doing that from the community, particularly
  • his own African American community.
  • But Mayor Johnson was someone who didn't particularly
  • embrace feedback and people reaching out and sharing
  • their opinion with him about what he should do or might
  • consider doing.
  • He listened, perhaps not as significantly
  • or in as great an occurrence as others might in elected office
  • or have.
  • So when I'm asked the question about how did we
  • persuade Mayor Johnson, you'd have to ask him that.
  • Because while there were conversations with him
  • and there was certainly a ton of information shared with him,
  • and I know he and Tim had conversations,
  • but he and Tim also had a very tense relationship.
  • So I often wonder that for every conversation that Tim
  • had with Mayor Johnson trying to get him to support
  • domestic partnership, at the end of some of those conversations
  • might we have suffered at least a setback of a sort.
  • Because they didn't have a very good relationship many times.
  • But I think Mayor Johnson ultimately
  • did what he felt was the right thing to do.
  • And just all around the fringes, we
  • did whatever we could to give him information and try
  • to bend his ear when we could when he would listen.
  • But it would be an exaggeration to say
  • that there was a very extensive, effective lobbying
  • effort with the mayor.
  • He pretty much did what he wanted to do.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: So let's jump forward to 2003
  • and you being appointed to city council.
  • We already laid the groundwork for Tim
  • laying some of the ground work.
  • It was a different environment for you.
  • The whole gay issue was not really
  • much of an issue for you.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Well, when I came on board--
  • when I was appointed-- and I make that distinction
  • purposely.
  • When I was appointed in 2003--
  • first off, when you're in elected office
  • or aspire to elected office, one of the best things
  • can happen to you besides getting
  • re-elected is to get appointed in the first place.
  • It is the easiest way to get into elected office.
  • It's also a humbling approach or way to get onto city council.
  • Because you've been selected by your colleagues
  • or who would become your colleagues.
  • But I was appointed.
  • And I was the second openly gay man--
  • by virtue of that appointment, I became
  • the second openly gay man to serve on city council.
  • I challenge anyone to come up with one other example
  • across the country where that happened,
  • where it was a similar situation,
  • it's a legislative body at a local level and the people
  • who were empowered to do so knowingly
  • appointed an additional openly gay man
  • or lesbian to their body.
  • I bet you couldn't find it.
  • I bet you can't find an example.
  • And that goes to the credit of the people who
  • were around the table, who became
  • my colleagues after that vote.
  • It shows our community and how we
  • had grown as a political community
  • and as a social community, the community of Rochester,
  • where we couldn't do that in 2003.
  • But there's a flip side to that.
  • Because I get on city council and there
  • are still many gay men and lesbians
  • who are looking to me, rightly so, as a champion
  • of gay and lesbian rights.
  • And of course, that's a no brainer.
  • The challenge is there isn't a heck of a lot to fight for.
  • Many of our accomplishments that were achievable at the time
  • had been achieved.
  • So I would go out to parties and hang out
  • at the bars occasionally, and sometimes more
  • than occasionally.
  • People would approach me.
  • And they'd say, "We've got to do this, we've got to do that."
  • I would say, "Well, do what?
  • Domestic partnership?
  • Been there done that.
  • The registry?
  • Been there done that."
  • And at the time of course, while we weren't necessarily
  • on the cutting edge of deciding federal issues,
  • there was still the gays in the military.
  • And there was the growing disagreement of Don't Ask,
  • Don't Tell.
  • But I mean, there was little we could do about it.
  • I mean, so that's why the "achievable." many
  • of the issues facing our community
  • had moved out of the ability of local government
  • to act upon them.
  • We could pass expressions of statements, resolutions,
  • and whatnot.
  • You could be vocal in the community.
  • As a member of the city council of Rochester, New York,
  • you could express support for civil unions or gay marriage.
  • But it really didn't mean a whole lot other than just
  • adding your voice.
  • Of course, there's nothing that we
  • can do about it legislatively.
  • So that was a challenge.
  • It was a challenge because you couldn't
  • meet-- you know, I'd go before gay groups,
  • gay and lesbian groups and they'd want a list.
  • Right away, they'd want a list of things
  • I had done legislatively for the gay and lesbian community.
  • I was always very honest with them.
  • I'd say, "Well, I'm always supportive obviously
  • of our issues.
  • But legislatively we've done about all
  • that we can on our level."
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: So let's jump forward to something
  • we discussed about at the table about the gay community
  • expecting you, because you're a gay man, to be completely
  • supportive of any gay issue or completely supportive
  • of any gay candidate, particularly Tim
  • running for mayor.
  • Talk to me about walking the tightrope there.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Well, as an openly gay man
  • in a relationship, I was totally out.
  • There was nobody who didn't know I was gay.
  • And that's how I had decided to live my life.
  • But I was more than just a gay man.
  • And there were those in the gay community who
  • at times expressed their disappointment that they
  • didn't feel I was gay enough.
  • And that comment or comments like
  • it always made me shake my head, I'm not gay enough?
  • I'm out, everyone knows I'm out.
  • Well, you're not pushing enough gay issues.
  • And then I would come back with my response to that.
  • Well, the issues that we can act upon have been accomplished.
  • So what would you like me to do, spin my wheels
  • pushing issues that are only solvable at the federal level
  • and focusing in on nothing that we can
  • accomplish at the local level?
  • Or what?
  • What would you like me to do?
  • That kind of challenge really came to a head
  • when Tim decided to run for mayor in 2005.
  • Actually, it was towards the end of 2004.
  • There were rumors flying around that Tim was going to do it.
  • Ironically, I had a meet and greet for Wade Norwood
  • in my living room.
  • You might have been there actually.
  • And in my living room.
  • It was a meet and greet Wade Norwood.
  • And Tim was there.
  • And it was October of 2004.
  • He hadn't come out and announced for his candidacy.
  • I don't know if he had decided, but he
  • wanted to keep his cards close to his vest.
  • I don't know.
  • But then it was about a month or so after that.
  • And we met at his house down on the lake.
  • And he asked me for my support for his mayoral candidacy.
  • And I had to look at him.
  • And it was not a very comfortable conversation.
  • And I said, "Tim, I'm supporting Wade Norwood.
  • I've already given Wade my support."
  • And what ensued was a tense conversation.
  • Because Tim-- you don't run for public office
  • and not have doubts about your ability to be successful
  • and be the best person possible for the office you're seeking.
  • And of course, Tim was certainly very convinced
  • of his ability to do the very best job.
  • If you're the best person, well, you should.
  • If you don't think you're going to be
  • the best person in the race, you shouldn't be running.
  • So what ensued was a conversation
  • about how he believed he would make a better mayor than Wade.
  • And of course, there were vague rumors out there
  • that the mayor who would end up becoming mayor, Mayor Duffy,
  • was considering a run.
  • So we had a conversation about both of them.
  • And then of course at some point in the conversation--
  • I can't if it was said directly or implied--
  • come on, we're both gay.
  • And you're going to not support someone who's openly
  • gay and running for mayor and you're an openly gay elected
  • official?
  • How will the LGBT community view that?
  • And again, I can't remember if it was direct.
  • But if it wasn't direct, it was certainly implied.
  • And my response was at the time and was subsequently
  • because I was asked again and again, how could
  • I not be supporting Tim Mains?
  • And I said, "I'm gay and I'll always be gay,
  • but I approach what I believe is to be for the best
  • interest of this community.
  • And I just happened to believe that there's
  • somebody else in the race who would make a better mayor."
  • I think Tim would make a good mayor.
  • It's just there's somebody out there who I think
  • would make a better mayor.
  • And if I am to support somebody for an elected office
  • simply because they're gay or lesbian,
  • I would be untrue to my own beliefs.
  • I held myself to that standard.
  • And there were people who I would see out at various events
  • and they didn't know me from the next person,
  • but just because I was Bill Pritchard, openly
  • gay member of city council, they thought they knew me.
  • And they loved me.
  • They wanted me to run--
  • I'm not exaggerating.
  • I had people come up to me and say, "In that race,
  • why don't you run for mayor?
  • You've got to run for Senate."
  • Again and again, whatever, I mean I'm not
  • even interested in any of that.
  • But they were doing it because I was gay and they were gay.
  • And so I would tell people, "I never want your support
  • just because I'm gay."
  • I said, "because if that's the case, I'm sorry
  • but I am insulted.
  • Because I'm so much more than a gay man.
  • Everything I am is a gay man, but I'm
  • much more than just a gay man.
  • And that dismisses everything I've done or tried
  • to do while I've been in office or that I
  • say I'm going to do in office.
  • So please don't just support me because I'm gay."
  • And that is a huge difference--
  • 2004, 2005, huge difference from what we were experiencing
  • and what Tim experienced in 1985.
  • That really was, for many people,
  • I'm supporting Tim because he's gay and I am too.
  • Well twenty years later, and it was very different.
  • And we had grown as a community.
  • And it wasn't enough to be gay.
  • Because there were gay people who didn't support me because I
  • was supporting Wade Norwood instead of Tim or instead
  • of Mayor Duffy.
  • And there were people who weren't supporting me
  • not because I was gay--
  • or they wouldn't support me just because I was gay,
  • but they weren't supporting me because they
  • didn't like my positions on some economic issues
  • or other issues.
  • But I never ever saw that.
  • And I would tell other openly gay men or lesbians
  • who were involved in politics or seeking office--
  • I'd share with them.
  • And I'd try to impart upon them, this is a sign of our success.
  • We have grown as a community.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Right.
  • Yeah, to bring that full circle here
  • for me in regards to we are now at a point where,
  • yeah, it's fine to run as an openly gay candidate.
  • But we shouldn't be elected just because we're gay.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Absolutely.
  • We are at a point today where we as individual men and women
  • should not expect support from the LGBT community
  • just because we're a member of that community.
  • That just defies logic.
  • It didn't in 1985 and in the seventies.
  • But in my opinion, it does today.
  • However, in the last couple of months
  • with this presidential election between President
  • Obama and Governor Romney, a little part of my approach
  • does fall back to the seventies and eighties
  • where there was this very strident you must support me
  • because I'm gay approach.
  • I have become very strident in my support of President Obama.
  • And people say that the older you get, the more conservative
  • you get.
  • The older I get, the more liberal I'm getting.
  • And I know that if my good friends Carol E. Conklin,
  • and Sue Cowell, and others are watching this
  • at some point in the future, they're going to just applaud.
  • Because one thing I have been criticized
  • for a bit in the past has been I'm a bit too conservative.
  • I'm becoming more liberal as I get older.
  • And you talk about defying logic and expecting people
  • to vote for you just because they're gay
  • and you're gay or lesbian--
  • any gay man or lesbian who supports Governor Romney
  • in this race, just--
  • I shake my head and I just cannot understand it.
  • Because yes, we've grown as a community.
  • We're more than just LGBT people.
  • But be very careful.
  • Be very careful.
  • Because while we are more than just LBGT people,
  • at the end of the day, that's who we are.
  • And when there are candidates out there
  • who openly refuse to agree with or support gay marriage,
  • gay adoption, who refuse to define
  • a family as anything more than a man and a woman,
  • be very careful.
  • Because in my opinion, it's not a sign of growth
  • as a community or growth politically
  • as an individual, gay man or lesbian, if by example you say,
  • "Well, I'm supporting the candidate who is not
  • the best on gay issues, but I believe they're
  • good for the country overall."
  • And I look at them and I say, "OK,
  • but where are you going to live if this person gets elected?"
  • And they may or may not do a better job with the economy
  • and grow more jobs.
  • But if you can't get married if you can't adopt,
  • if your family's in jeopardy because of the social policies
  • that person puts in place, what good is a thriving economy
  • going to do you?
  • It almost feels like going back to the sixties and seventies
  • and it exhilarates me.
  • Because in some ways, we have come full circle.
  • I was one of the people who would defend Joe Robach back
  • in the day when, for those of us in the gay and lesbian
  • community, I mean, civil unions was an acceptable alternative
  • to gay marriage.
  • Not for me now and not as a community.
  • In some ways, we have begun to go back
  • to some of our militant roots of the sixties and seventies.
  • And I think that's a good thing.
  • I'm actually smiling about it.
  • Because I'm surprising myself.
  • Because the older I get, the more liberal I get.
  • Well, I moved to Delaware for crying out loud,
  • talk about the bastion of liberalism.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Let's do a couple quick bytes.
  • While you were on city council, we had an incident
  • here in Rochester, the Goodman Street incident
  • that blew up as controversy.
  • Give me your take on that incident
  • and more so some of the backlash that you got from some people
  • for you not immediately going after the police.
  • Just tell me the story of that incident
  • and how the community reacted to it
  • and also how you reacted to it.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: The incident on Goodman Street,
  • it was, I think, around 2006 maybe, roughly about
  • that timeframe, maybe 2007.
  • It was a mix of gay men and, I think, straight women.
  • I think it was some gay men, maybe one or two straight men,
  • and then straight women.
  • They were coming back from one of the bars on Monroe Avenue,
  • walking down Goodman street.
  • And it was late in the morning.
  • It was like 2:00 a.m.
  • or I guess early in the morning.
  • And they passed a home where there
  • were some people who probably had also been out drinking,
  • and partying, and whatnot.
  • They were a bit inebriated, if I recall.
  • And they made some gay slurs.
  • The group passed them and then came back.
  • They were mad.
  • And I don't blame them.
  • I mean, here you are walking down the street,
  • and it's your neighborhood.
  • I mean, they lived right down the street.
  • And they're being called all sorts of names
  • from this group on the front step of an apartment building.
  • And they got angry.
  • And they doubled back.
  • And that's when the problem started.
  • And I make a point of saying it that way and describing it.
  • Because that is what happened.
  • They doubled back.
  • They went back to the scene.
  • And that's where the trouble started.
  • And that, for me, I think helps explain my subsequent reaction.
  • Because the next day, it's all over the media.
  • There was this gay bashing.
  • And it was a bashing.
  • I mean, these young people were beaten.
  • They were clearly beaten by the individuals who had started
  • all this with the comments.
  • And there were at the time allegations
  • that there may have been some physical altercations
  • between the police on the scene and some of the individuals
  • who had been the victims of this, initially
  • the verbal assault.
  • One of the things that I always believe and I
  • don't think anybody could find an example
  • that would prove otherwise--
  • when I was in elected office, I always wanted the facts.
  • Now, if something was as obvious as the nose on your face,
  • I'm not naive and stupid, I would call it what it was.
  • But that wasn't the case with this.
  • There were conflicting stories of what the police did
  • and what they said.
  • There was the issue of the doubling back.
  • And I can appreciate their anger and being incensed
  • over being called names.
  • But you've got to let that go.
  • And you've got to think through these consequences.
  • And had they continued to walk on their way
  • home we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this right now.
  • But they didn't and we are.
  • And right away, there were people
  • in the community who were calling for the resignation
  • of those police officers.
  • They were already labeling it a hate crime,
  • the police were involved, da, da, da.
  • And I stood up and I said, "No, I'm
  • not going to automatically label those police with those names."
  • I said, "There is an investigation
  • that will be initiated.
  • The facts will come out."
  • I said, "Those police officers have every right to be innocent
  • until proven guilty like any of the rest of us."
  • It was a day or two after the incident.
  • And the Gay Alliance held a town hall meeting
  • at Downtown United Presbyterian Church.
  • And I went.
  • And I basically said that in front of a crowd.
  • It was a lot of people there, at least one hundred if not more,
  • a lot of people.
  • And it was only days after the incident.
  • So emotions were raw.
  • Actually, they were probably even worse
  • than they were the morning after.
  • Because there had been a great deal of commentary
  • in the media.
  • And it was getting people's blood boiling.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Hold that thought for a second.
  • Evelyn, you've got to--
  • Evelyn?
  • You've got to stop that.
  • Because we can hear it over here.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: And so I stood up in front of this crowd.
  • Because they wanted to know what city government would
  • do with the police department, what kind of direction
  • we would provide, and what we would do.
  • And what they wanted us to do--
  • they wanted to push yes for an investigation.
  • But they wanted something to happen with these police
  • officers.
  • And I stood up and I said, "No."
  • I said, "I'm not going to push for that.
  • There's going to be an investigation.
  • We're all very concerned.
  • I'm troubled by some of the comments that
  • were made by police officers and were
  • being repeated by the victims."
  • I said, "I'm very concerned by what I'm hearing.
  • But I want the facts."
  • Boy, that didn't go over well with some people.
  • And I was called a few names.
  • There were a couple of people who
  • stood up and got very emotional and in the process of being
  • very emotional said some very nasty things to me, about me.
  • But I held my ground.
  • I understood where they were coming from,
  • their pain, their frustration with the system,
  • with the process.
  • But I was not going to pile on.
  • I wasn't going to do it.
  • And to me, it didn't matter how much
  • pressure I got from the gay community or anybody else.
  • I wasn't going to do it.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: I'm going to jump all over here.
  • First of all, because we're probably
  • running out of time here.
  • Gay men in the military before Don't Ask, Don't Tell--
  • talk to me about that a little bit.
  • Talk to me about being in the service.
  • And how did you deal with it?
  • BILL PRITCHARD: It's funny because gays in the military--
  • gays have been around in the military for a very, very--
  • probably back in George Washington's time
  • and before, back in Caesar's time.
  • So gay men and lesbians serving in the military
  • was not a new phenomenon in the 1980s
  • when I was in the military.
  • In fact, we used to joke, but it was--
  • for the most part it was pretty true--
  • I was stationed in Norfolk, Virginia.
  • I was actually at Langley Air Force Base
  • which is right across the water from Norfolk, Virginia
  • and the big Naval base there.
  • And we would joke that if the government ever came through
  • and kicked out every single gay man
  • that there would be entire aircraft carrier groups that
  • would be in dry dock.
  • Because they would not have enough people
  • to staff those ships.
  • And it's true.
  • When I was in the military, I lived off
  • base for most of that time.
  • And I had a nine to five job, I got lucky.
  • It was the military.
  • That was my military life.
  • For most of the time I lived off base, I had gay roommates.
  • So after five o'clock, I was immersed in the gay community,
  • gay culture.
  • We went to the gay bars.
  • I had all gay friends.
  • In fact, I gradually had very few straight friends,
  • straight colleagues in the military.
  • And we were fortunate.
  • Because while there was the occasional raid from the Naval
  • police services--
  • I forget the name for it now--
  • they would periodically sit out in the parking lots of gay bars
  • and write down license plate numbers.
  • They would watch who comes.
  • Occasionally, they would bring in undercover people.
  • And if they caught anybody in any demonstrative physical
  • embraces or what have you, they wouldn't act inside the bar.
  • But they would wait until people leave.
  • And it was so obvious who were the military people
  • and who weren't, our haircuts.
  • It was just so obvious.
  • I think what kept things flowing smoothly in the Norfolk area
  • was because it had such a large Naval presence.
  • About every six months, the gay male part of the community
  • anyways changed.
  • Because literally, there were that many people
  • in the military who were gay.
  • They'd go out in the Navy, would go out in aircraft carriers,
  • go off for six months, go off for a year.
  • So it was a never-ending change in the faces you saw out there.
  • And I think it was because of that constant change that
  • made things easier for us as a gay community
  • and being in the military to survive.
  • But I knew people who were kicked out for being gay.
  • I had people I worked with-- and I
  • was in Air Force Intelligence.
  • And obviously, intelligence is a very sensitive field.
  • I'll never forget there was a guy who was my sponsor when
  • I got there.
  • He was the one who was supposed to show me around the base
  • and get me acclimated to everything so
  • that my time at Langley would be successful as possible.
  • He was gay.
  • He was also a highly decorated non-commissioned officer
  • in our field.
  • He was very well respected.
  • He was very good at what we did.
  • He was also gay.
  • And eventually, it was discovered
  • that he was HIV positive.
  • He was the first person to become
  • HIV positive in tactical air command which was, at the time,
  • one of three main branches of the Air Force.
  • He was down at Wilford Hall in Texas.
  • And he wouldn't admit that he was gay.
  • And they were fascinated.
  • And that's the only way to put it.
  • They were fascinated by how he could have contracted HIV.
  • Because think about it, this was 1986.
  • There was still a lot that wasn't known about HIV,
  • how it was transmitted, and so on and so forth.
  • Well, when he finally broke down to his doctor
  • and said he was gay--
  • and this was after many weeks of ongoing tests, some of them
  • painful, he admitted was gay.
  • This was a Major in the Air Force, a physician.
  • The doctor immediately called our wing commander
  • to let him know.
  • Because he saw in the records that Ben
  • had a security clearance.
  • Well, Ben was summarily discharged after that.
  • Because now they knew, oh, he's gay.
  • That's how he got HIV.
  • I'm not exaggerating when I say, well, oh, well.
  • What did he expect?
  • That was the reaction.
  • Ben comes back.
  • He no longer has his security clearance.
  • He can't work in our building.
  • So therefore, while they're administratively
  • discharging him from the Air Force,
  • he spent approximately eight or ten weeks in a Norfolk summer--
  • and if you have never lived in Norfolk, Virginia or any place
  • like it, the humidity is unbearable in the summer.
  • He was put on a base detail working six days a week,
  • twelve on, twelve off, tearing down old barracks, no air
  • conditioning, the dead of summer, the middle of the day.
  • For someone with a compromised immune system
  • who is already starting to experience the medical signs--
  • there were already signs he was developing full blown AIDS.
  • It didn't matter.
  • That's how they treated him on the way
  • out, a decorated, non-commissioned officer
  • recognized as an expert in our field.
  • And that's how he spent his final days
  • as a member of the United States military.
  • I'll never forget it.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Move forward a little bit,
  • Don't Ask, Don't Tell--
  • just your opinions on that and how that really became,
  • I would think, a detriment to particular gay men
  • and women in the military.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Well, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was--
  • we were all-- and I still am-- in love with Bill Clinton.
  • There's very little he could do wrong.
  • So I say that to put into context the whole discussion
  • that ensued and then the ultimate passage of Don't Ask,
  • Don't Tell.
  • For those of us who had served in the military--
  • because I was out by then--
  • I mean, we obviously wanted the ability for anybody
  • who wanted to serve in the military
  • to serve regardless of whether they were gay or straight.
  • I think there were certainly elements of the gay and lesbian
  • community who from the get go did not like Don't Ask,
  • Don't Tell.
  • I think there were those of us, including myself,
  • I think in the majority, that we didn't fully
  • appreciate the full ramifications of Don't
  • Ask, Don't Tell at that time.
  • Of course, that was '94 or '93, I'm sorry, '93.
  • It took several years for the statistics
  • to show that more people were kicked out of the military
  • for being gay under Don't Ask, Don't
  • Tell than in the previous period when you just
  • had to just put up and shut up which is not too
  • unlike Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
  • And so at the time, it was an acceptable compromise.
  • I came to reject that thought.
  • But it goes back to what I said in an earlier comment about how
  • in some ways the gay community, we have embraced--
  • and certainly me as an individual--
  • we've gone back and we've embraced
  • an element of the radicalness and the militantness
  • that embodied our movement in the sixties and seventies
  • and early eighties.
  • Because today, if it hadn't have been for the fact
  • that those in the community like me who early on saw Don't Ask,
  • Don't Tell as an acceptable compromise,
  • if we hadn't ultimately joined our brothers and sisters who
  • from day one saw it for what it was,
  • a horrible piece of legislation, and therefore began
  • to put significant pressure on the powerbrokers
  • and certainly on the current president of the United States
  • to get rid of it, it might not have happened.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Again jumping around here,
  • I don't want to miss these thoughts.
  • Let's go way back to 1992.
  • I want to get a little soundbyte about ImageOut,
  • not so much the demise of ImageOut
  • or how it left Gay Alliance, but more the beginnings of it.
  • You were on the board of the Gay Alliance at the time.
  • And this idea of a film festival comes about.
  • Just talk to me about that and talk to me
  • about the significance of a city like Rochester
  • to be able to put forth a gay and lesbian film festival.
  • BILL PRITCHARD: There are many things, I think,
  • in the nineties that contributed to an enhanced spirit
  • in our community.
  • And nobody can rattle off a list of those occurrences
  • without mentioning the gay and lesbian film festival.
  • You think it's easy.
  • This was before Will and Grace.
  • It was before Modern Family and the New Normal,
  • and all those new television shows, and the movies.
  • It was before all that.
  • And I know that younger gay men and lesbians
  • who may not even have been born in 1992,
  • they just don't know it.
  • Like we don't know what occurred in the 1920s or 1930s.
  • We weren't around.
  • It's hard to appreciate it.
  • That's why you listen to history.
  • You listen to people who were there.
  • That's why this documentary is so, so important.
  • You learn from history.
  • And it was an empowering moment in time.
  • And as a member of the Gay Alliance board of directors,
  • I was proud that we were there.
  • Because there had been a festival about one or two
  • years before.
  • It had happened, I think it was held at the old Radisson.
  • And it was successful in its own right.
  • But what Larry Champoux, and Susan Soleil, and David Emert
  • were proposing in 1992 what to do
  • and where to take what had occurred a couple of years ago
  • and take it to not just the next level up but
  • several levels from that was fascinating.
  • It was a little scary.
  • Because it was the unknown.
  • But it was exhilarating, it was exciting,
  • and it was empowering.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: And again, what does
  • that say about a community like Rochester?
  • One of the things I want to get from you is, you know,
  • we're Rochester, New York.
  • We're not a big city.
  • We're actually just a big town.
  • But we have so much here in regards
  • to gay activism and things like ImageOut
  • and things like a youth center and the Gay
  • Alliance in general, a lot of political clout
  • from the gay community.
  • What does that say about Rochester and who we are?
  • BILL PRITCHARD: It says a great deal.
  • Our successes over the years as a gay community
  • and what we've been able to accomplish,
  • we could not have accomplished if it was just
  • gay men and lesbians out there doing it and fighting for it.
  • There's no way.
  • And I don't think anybody would disagree with that statement.
  • It doesn't take away from anybody who
  • was there who moved us along.
  • But the fact of the matter is not only
  • are our successes as an LGBT community signs of not just
  • a strong LGBT community, but also
  • a progressive, empowering straight community.
  • Because just because just as quickly
  • as people over the years--
  • Bill Johnson with CETA funding in the seventies, Lois Geiss
  • and her embracing of domestic partnership in the nineties,
  • and everybody in between, before, and since
  • from the straight community, political or otherwise,
  • who became allies of ours--
  • if it hadn't been for them, we would not
  • have been nearly as successful as we were as a community.
  • And I am very proud.
  • I no longer live in Rochester.
  • But I am very proud to have been born,
  • and raised, and lived here most of my life.
  • Ours is a community that has been certainly
  • by comparison progressive.
  • Certainly willing to try new ideas.
  • Ironically, that's always been more so
  • in the social and community side of things
  • than in the economic and other kinds of things.
  • But certainly when it comes to social issues,
  • we've been very--
  • I mean, look at the pillars of our community history--
  • I mean, Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass--
  • I mean, we were getting it as a community long before any of us
  • and our grandparents were born.
  • So it isn't a stretch, not really,
  • when you can say that some of the successes, maybe
  • many of the successes, we've enjoyed over the last twenty
  • years or so you can tie right back to people
  • like Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass.
  • Because in an era when it was much, much
  • more dangerous to stand out and be different from the crowd,
  • they did.
  • But they did it, again comparatively speaking,
  • in a riskier climate.
  • But it also says something about Rochester even of that day.
  • The origins of the progressive community
  • that we've enjoyed for a very, very long time, that we
  • have witnesses individuals, that didn't start up in a vacuum.
  • That has its origins back to the days of Susan B. and Frederick
  • Douglass.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Just a couple more quick things here.
  • Your thoughts on-- you mentioned this at the table.
  • It took a while for the gay community
  • to come together as a force in this community.
  • We weren't always so accepting.
  • There's always been this faction of the lesbians being
  • a little bit outside of the gay activist movement.
  • We didn't completely embrace the drag queens right away.
  • There's a lot of people in our community
  • that didn't want them representing us.
  • Can you just talk to me a little bit about that
  • and how eventually we did eventually work together?
  • BILL PRITCHARD: It's funny.
  • Because we as a community have sometimes been our own worst
  • enemy within.
  • I can remember conversations after I moved back to Rochester
  • in the early nineties.
  • And there were people who would just
  • shake if they heard that the drag
  • queens were going to be at some kind
  • of political demonstration.
  • Oh, we can't have that.
  • They send the wrong image.
  • People will think we're all drag queens, and oh my God.
  • And I would say, wait a minute.
  • I mean, if it hadn't have been for the drag queens
  • at Stonewall, we probably wouldn't
  • be standing here today.
  • But nonetheless-- and the racism,
  • and the sexism, and the classism, and you
  • still have all of that.
  • I don't think it's as bad as it was.
  • But we're always going to have it.
  • Because it's exists in the broader community
  • and it always will.
  • You just hope that it will get better.
  • And when I say better in this case, it lessens.
  • But for a long time you had, and I
  • think you still have (unintelligible) of classism
  • based on socioeconomic status.
  • We still have it.
  • And it isn't just here.
  • I see it in Delaware.
  • But up until the last few years, those Empire State Pride Agenda
  • dinners were pretty white and pretty male.
  • And I'm not talking about twenty years ago.
  • I'm talking about two years ago, three years ago.
  • It's gotten better.
  • It could get a lot better.
  • It's unfortunate that we don't, as gay men, and lesbians,
  • and bisexuals, and transgendered people
  • that we can't set aside the prejudices that
  • exist in the broader community and embrace each other more
  • wholly and completely get rid of that divisiveness.
  • Because I think we've proven that over the last few years
  • we have pushed that back to a degree.
  • And I think we've proven how, by doing that, you
  • can be more successful.
  • I won't mention any names.
  • But I know people today who would think nothing of inviting
  • and have actually invited drag queens to participate
  • in political events who twenty years ago in some
  • of those conversations I mentioned
  • had happened twenty years ago, they
  • would have fallen all over themselves
  • in trying to avoid that situation.
  • They've grown.
  • But it goes back to this evolution,
  • I think, we've had in the community going back
  • to a degree our militant roots and not accepting, no longer
  • saying, well, civil unions, it's an acceptable alternative
  • to gay marriage.
  • Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it's an acceptable alternative
  • to what existed before.
  • No, it's not acceptable anymore.
  • Now twenty years ago, I would have been called a radical.
  • Today, I think I'm just expressing in general terms
  • the feeling of the gay community.
  • And the people who are still out there critical of what
  • they term are the fringe elements of our community,
  • they're now the fringe.
  • They're now the ones who are on the outside looking in.
  • And I like that.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: So to kind of wrap it
  • all up to where we are today, we've come a long way.
  • We got gay marriage passed in New York.
  • We've still got to get rid of DOMA, which
  • hopefully will happen soon.
  • But that's not the end.
  • We've still got a lot of challenges ahead of us.
  • What's your thoughts on that?
  • BILL PRITCHARD: Well, my first thought
  • is that history about the challenges ahead of us
  • as a community-- because we have great successes.
  • And I really believe particularly
  • with these most recent court challenges or court decisions,
  • one in New York saying that the Defense of Marriage Act
  • is unconstitutional--
  • I think we are very close more likely
  • from a legislative standpoint of having
  • equal marriage be the law of the land than we have ever been.
  • But I'm also a student of history.
  • I'm a teacher of history.
  • And if you want to predict the future,
  • one of the first places you want to look is the past.
  • Because history repeats itself.
  • And while we have enjoyed many successes
  • and I think we have successes to come,
  • I also believe that there will always
  • be an element in our society that
  • wants to resist that, that hates that, that doesn't understand
  • that.
  • And we'll go back to what we experienced, perhaps,
  • in the nineties, that backlash to our success.
  • So we can't rest on our laurels.
  • And we can't think that the world will forevermore
  • be an embracing, perfect one for LGBT families and individuals.
  • The wrong person elected as President of the United States
  • could really set things back.
  • So I have great hope for the future,
  • while still concern for it based on history.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: And that's a wrap.
  • I'll get this microphone off you and you'll be good to go.