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,