Video Interview, Tom Petrillo and Bill Reamy, June 6, 2012

  • KEVIN INDOVINO: These are from my checks a week ago.
  • Just give us the correct spelling
  • of your first and last name.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: First name is William, W-I-L-L-I-A-M.
  • Last name is Reamy, R-E-A-M as in music, Y.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: And, can I call you Bill?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Yes.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: When I put your name on a screen,
  • what particular title would like me to put under it?
  • Psychologist, psychiatrist?
  • Do you want a title like that?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Well, you could put psychiatrist
  • or you could put MD after my name.
  • Please don't use psychologist.
  • I'm not a psychologist, and I've never taken
  • a psychology course in my life.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: OK.
  • And Tom, first thing how do you want to be identified?
  • And correct spelling of first and last name?
  • TOM PETRILLO: Then for me it's Tom, T-O-M Petrillo,
  • P-E-T-R-I-L-L-O, attorney.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Attorney.
  • OK.
  • Simply just attorney?
  • Not attorney at law?
  • TOM PETRILLO: That's fine.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Yeah, so you could use M.D. And then
  • psychiatrist underneath.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: So yeah, Bill, let's start with you first.
  • General question, because in the 1970s
  • you were attending the U of R?
  • Was that correct?
  • Or no, you came to Strong for residency?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: I came to Strong for my psychiatric residency
  • late June of 1973.
  • And I'd like to say that back then being gay
  • was illegal, immoral, and sick.
  • And now it's only immoral.
  • And it's not even immoral any more
  • in certain places, like the church where
  • Tom and I got married.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: So let's talk about life
  • as a gay man in the 1970s.
  • What was it like?
  • Two things, where were you socializing?
  • But more so, where were you finding information
  • about being gay?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Let me think about that.
  • Are you talking about--
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: It was unfair for me
  • to ask you two different questions all in one.
  • Just talk to me about being a gay man in the 1970s.
  • What was it like?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Scary.
  • I was feeling very closeted back then and being--
  • training for the medical profession,
  • I was very, very protective of my privacy.
  • I worried a lot about people finding out.
  • So it was very constricting back then.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Being at the university
  • at the time that the Gay Liberation Front was also
  • pretty much getting started up, did
  • you get involved with the GLF at all?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: No, not really.
  • When I came to Rochester, I started
  • into my psychiatric residency which was very intense.
  • So to some extent I was very oblivious to the outside world.
  • Trying to socialize was difficult.
  • I think I came to Rochester with a gay guy that
  • told me about a couple of bars in the area.
  • And eventually I learned about the Gay Alliance
  • and about the Empty Closet, which
  • I thought was a really neat name for a newspaper.
  • But in Rochester basically, you met people
  • by meeting other people.
  • There really weren't places to go to meet people.
  • And going to a bar was really a place where you drank.
  • You really, really couldn't meet people there.
  • And that was a little scary.
  • After all, Tom will tell you about that about police raids
  • at bars.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Talk to me about residency
  • in the field of psychiatry as a gay man
  • where this was a view that still designated homosexuality
  • as an illness.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Well, to tell you about my residency at Strong,
  • I really have to start out in Richmond, Virginia, which
  • is where I did my medical school training and my internship.
  • And I kind of had the idea when I came to Rochester
  • that in some ways Rochester was actually
  • more conservative than Richmond, Virginia was.
  • I'd had a rather frightening experience.
  • After I was accepted for my residency up here in Rochester,
  • I got a call from the people at the Department of Psychiatry
  • saying they wanted me to come up and talk again,
  • because someone had called them up
  • and told them that I was gay, and that I had caused a patient
  • to commit suicide.
  • And it was a person who I had dated and had
  • stopped dating because they found him
  • to be a rather angry person.
  • So I came up to Rochester and I said to them, "Well, I am gay.
  • But I didn't cause my patient to commit suicide."
  • And they said, "Fine.
  • You're welcome to go through the residency here,
  • but don't tell anyone else in the department
  • about your being gay, because they may not feel the same
  • about it as the way we did."
  • So they kind of set the tone for my being up here.
  • To his credit, the chairman of the Department
  • of Psychiatry at the Medical College of Virginia
  • said to me, "Well, if they don't want to take you,
  • you're welcome down here."
  • So I did have the advantage of having someone down in Richmond
  • who was supportive.
  • So I did my residency.
  • And I didn't talk about things.
  • So there really was no one who would give me
  • guidance about how to deal with gay patients.
  • It's not that there was any sort of malevolence involved.
  • I didn't really hear anyone making bad comments.
  • But it reminded me a bit of a cartoon
  • I once saw in Christopher Street magazine
  • where there's a little boy kneeling by the side of the bed
  • saying his prayers, saying "And God bless Uncle
  • Jack and his roommate Bill, whom we don't talk about."
  • So it's not that people were saying bad things,
  • but there really was no one around to affirm
  • me and my personhood or to counteract
  • the opinion of myself that I had as a result of what psychiatry
  • around me was saying.
  • And I think it certainly did affect my ability
  • to deal with gay patients.
  • Because it made it more difficult for me
  • to affirm them and help them feel comfortable
  • about themselves.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: And we'll touch upon that just a little bit
  • more.
  • Expand on it a little bit.
  • Here you are, a gay man who's a psychiatrist treating clients,
  • who probably some are coming to you because of their issues
  • with being gay.
  • You still have on the books that EMS classifications of gayness
  • being a mental illness.
  • How did you deal with all of that?
  • Was there a conflict of interest in there at all?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Well, the DSM II, which
  • is what we went by when I first came to Rochester,
  • was a very general listing of mental disorders.
  • It had not become the Bible that the DSM III and the DSM IV
  • had become later on.
  • Homosexuality was listed under the perversions.
  • It was not a personality disorder.
  • But it was lumped in with the personality disorders.
  • I even looked it up in my old DSM II last night.
  • It was code 302.0.
  • That was homosexuality.
  • Basically perversions were anything that for the object
  • of which was not vaginal intercourse.
  • So anything except the missionary position
  • was a perversion, basically.
  • What struck me is that the diagnosis really
  • concentrated only on sex.
  • It said nothing about affection, or caring, or love,
  • which is entirely different from the way we understand it today.
  • So it was basically a physical type diagnosis.
  • So I basically just ignored that diagnosis.
  • I never diagnosed anyone as being homosexual.
  • I didn't see any need for it.
  • I could diagnose people as being depressed or anxious.
  • For myself, as a psychiatrist, there was this conflict
  • of how could I be a psychiatrist if I
  • had a psychiatric disorder, if I were sick?
  • And that kind of stuck in the back of my head.
  • There were a few people who kind of helped me out with that.
  • A friend that I knew from Philadelphia who said, "Oh no,
  • I know plenty of gay psychiatrists."
  • And the chairman of the Department
  • of Psychiatry at the Medical College of Virginia
  • who talked more about sexuality than anyone
  • at the University of Rochester did,
  • and who was very supportive.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Just for my own reference,
  • when was the DSM II implemented?
  • Do you remember?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: The DSM II?
  • A long time ago.
  • When I started medical school in 1968,
  • the DSM II was already in existence.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: I got to do a little research on that, then.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: There was a DSM I before that.
  • but I don't know when it was revised.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: And then eventually there
  • was a three and a four.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: That's correct.
  • That's correct.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: You already kind of touched upon this,
  • but I just kind of want to ask again.
  • About your residence at Strong, homosexuality really
  • wasn't talked very much about.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: No, it really wasn't talked much about.
  • I had the feeling that people really didn't understand it,
  • did not understand the gay culture,
  • had stereotyped ideas about homosexuality.
  • I can give you a couple of examples.
  • I was looking through a summary that a resident
  • had written about a patient who was in a lesbian relationship.
  • And one of his comments was she literally
  • wore the pants in the family.
  • And I thought that was kind of a stereotyped idea
  • of gay relationships.
  • Another experience I had was the residents
  • would regularly get together at the home
  • of a rather esteemed psychiatrist and professor
  • to discuss various works of Freud.
  • And someone had remarked that they had heard a radio
  • program featuring gay music.
  • Back in those days, there was a program
  • on Thursday nights entitled Green Thursday.
  • And the professor remarked, "what in the world
  • is gay music?"
  • and kind of poopooed it.
  • And I thought it meant he really didn't
  • understand that there is this whole world over there,
  • and that there were other people who
  • think about things in a certain way
  • and have a certain affiliation.
  • So I think it was more ignorance than malevolence.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: And obviously, without revealing names
  • or any specific case, but when a client would come to you
  • and it really was coming down to the issue
  • that he or she was having problems with their gayness,
  • how did you counsel those people?
  • What were you telling them?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Well, when I was a resident,
  • no one came to me telling me that they were
  • having problems with being gay.
  • And I think that came later on, when I was in private practice
  • and was really more comfortable with myself.
  • I think back in those days, people just
  • didn't talk to psychiatrists that much about it.
  • I had one patient who was a female to male transsexual.
  • And he and I had some very good conversations.
  • And it was not difficult talking about that at all.
  • As a matter of fact, one of my supervisors
  • was just astounded that I wasn't floored by that.
  • Like, I should have been.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: When did you see things starting
  • to change in regards to attitudes within the psychiatry
  • field toward what homosexuality really is?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Well, I think it was a very gradual thing.
  • Of course there was the removal of homosexuality from the DSM.
  • And that would have been in December of 1973.
  • I don't think there was much of a change in attitudes
  • back then.
  • And there were a lot of people who said well, this
  • is just a political thing.
  • You don't change a diagnosis by a vote of the membership.
  • Nevertheless, the majority of the members of the American
  • Psychiatric Association voted to remove it from the list.
  • Probably, I would not say that there was a change in attitudes
  • until the early eighties gradually becoming greater
  • and greater and greater.
  • I suspect that this had something
  • to do at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic and gay people
  • being more in the news.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: I want to talk a little bit more on the DSM
  • because I don't want to just brush over it.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: OK.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Can you talk to me about really
  • how significant it was for the DSM designation
  • to be taken off the books?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Well, I think it was
  • very significant for gay people no longer to be stigmatized.
  • As I said, it was a gradual process.
  • The fact that it was taken off the books
  • didn't mean that there weren't psychiatrists who still kept it
  • in their minds as a diagnosis and who
  • were absolutely convinced that gay people were
  • stunted in their development.
  • Also there remained on the books for a short period of time
  • the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality.
  • Ego-dystonic just means I don't like the way I am.
  • So it was if you were gay, but you were
  • uncomfortable with being gay.
  • I remember once I had finished my residency,
  • but I was working for another agency,
  • I interviewed a patient.
  • I evaluated the patient who had already been seen
  • by a non-physicianed counselor.
  • The counselor had written down a diagnosis
  • of ego-dystonic homosexuality.
  • I wrote in my notes yes, this man is homosexual.
  • But there's nothing ego dystonic about it.
  • He's perfectly comfortable with it.
  • People were looking for diagnoses.
  • That would have been in the late seventies early eighties.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: You've made an interesting point there.
  • People looking for a diagnosis, trying
  • to somehow pick an answer about why people are gay.
  • Is that still true today?
  • Are they still trying to figure it out ?
  • Or how have things changed?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Well, I think people are much looser about it
  • today.
  • I don't think people are really looking
  • for reasons at this point.
  • There is curiosity about it.
  • There is research.
  • There's been research into whether there's
  • a genetic basis for being gay.
  • But for the most part, people are a lot more
  • relaxed about it.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: At some point you
  • eventually started seeking out gay pyschiatrist groups.
  • Or did you even try to form one?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Well, I was very lonely
  • and I would have loved to have met other gay psychiatrists.
  • Not that there weren't others in Rochester,
  • but they really, really had no interest in affiliating.
  • There were a couple of times when I put out notices
  • or I put out--
  • I don't know what paper it was.
  • Maybe it was the Empty Closet trying to form a group,
  • but I couldn't get people to come together.
  • Eventually, I did find a group.
  • The one that eventually became the Association
  • of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists,
  • which formed through the American Psychiatric
  • Association.
  • I've got to be careful not to say APA,
  • because the psychologists have their American Psychological
  • Association.
  • In probably 1976, I was feeling very much alone.
  • I went back to Washington, DC.
  • I grew up in that area.
  • I was visiting, and I called Franklin Kameny.
  • Franklin Kameny was the co-founder of the Washington
  • Mattachine Society.
  • Franklin Kameny was also one of the people who
  • organized a takeover of the APA meeting in Washington in 1971,
  • and kind of co-opted the microphone, which eventually
  • led two years later to the repeal of homosexuality
  • as a diagnosis.
  • He was a rather irascible type person,
  • not prone to soft emotions.
  • But I asked to talk with him.
  • And I actually went to his place and I told him
  • that I was seeking other groups of psychiatrists.
  • And he said, "Well, I know of some people I
  • can put into contact with you."
  • It seemed that there were groups of gay psychiatrists
  • who had met informally at APA meetings,
  • would get together in bars, would talk to each other.
  • They referred to themselves as the GayPA.
  • And so I went to my first APA meeting in Toronto and 1977
  • and met up with some of these people.
  • And the group eventually was formalized the next year
  • in Atlanta, Georgia.
  • It had a long title to begin with,
  • but it eventually became the AGLP, the Association of Gay
  • and Lesbian Psychiatrists.
  • And so that played a strong role in helping me feel better
  • about myself, being affiliated with a group
  • of intelligent normal gay people who were interested in not only
  • providing support, but in doing serious research
  • and also organizing within the APA.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: I was going to ask you
  • after attending the meetings like that
  • and finding a gay psychiatry support group, what
  • did you bring back with you to Rochester that you could then
  • share within your own residency or your own practice?
  • What impact did it have on you and your practice?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: I was no longer resident at that time.
  • And I think the impact it had on me
  • was greater confidence in myself and as a gay person.
  • And eventually I think it helped me to work better
  • with gay patients because I could exude that confidence
  • and help them feel better about themselves.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Tom, before you fall asleep there,
  • we'll go over to you.
  • TOM PETRILLO: I learned some things I didn't know.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: You talk a lot about the mental health
  • field the journey of gayness through that.
  • The whole realm of things legally that gay people
  • have to deal with for decades.
  • I don't know where to start actually.
  • Let's just start very generally.
  • What initially- and I know some of these are still actually
  • issues - but as a gay person, what are some of those legal
  • issues that they're faced with in their daily lives,
  • in their relationships, estates planning, all of that.
  • Just describe some of the biggest challenges--
  • TOM PETRILLO: Are you talking about now
  • or starting the sixties going--
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Starting in the sixties.
  • Yeah, we'll work back and bring it up to today.
  • TOM PETRILLO: In the sixties and seventies,
  • the law did not reflect the nuances of a gay relationship.
  • For example, if two people lived together
  • in a long term relationship, they
  • were treated as "business partners."
  • If something happened to the relationship--
  • and I can tell you some very interesting stories about that
  • if you'd like them--
  • the court would say no, the fact that there
  • is affection, the fact that there
  • is a different type of relationship
  • is totally irrelevant.
  • This is a business relationship.
  • And that's how assets would be distributed.
  • That's how a relationship would be dissolved.
  • In the estate area, things became more difficult
  • than if you were in a heterosexual relationship
  • because there was always the threat--
  • and it occurred several times with clients of mine--
  • where one partner would die, leave everything
  • to the other partner, as we would expect.
  • And then a family member would step in and challenge the will.
  • And the theory that they used back in particularly
  • in the late sixties, seventies, and even early eighties was
  • one of the ways you could set aside someone's will
  • is to show undue influence.
  • And there were some judges who took
  • the-- around the state-- who took
  • the position that the very nature
  • of this sexual relationship was in and of itself
  • proof of undue influence.
  • So that there were times when wills were set aside.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Try not to rub your shoes together.
  • I know you're doing it subconsciously,
  • but the microphone might be picking it up.
  • I'm sorry I interrupted you.
  • Did you have more to say on that?
  • Good.
  • Before we get into the way things
  • are now, I'm going to examine a little bit more
  • about the sixties and seventies and where things were at.
  • In your practice back then, you were
  • dealing with some police harassment, police raids,
  • harassment, situations with gay people.
  • Were you dealing with them as clients or were you
  • dealing with mostly the police department?
  • TOM PETRILLO: Both.
  • Initially, when I graduated in law school in 1965,
  • I became an attorney in the City Law Office
  • that's the chief law department for the City of Rochester.
  • And one of my tasks was to be a liaison with the police
  • department.
  • And that was partly because so many
  • of the things that went on with legal disputes
  • involved the police.
  • They could be witnesses, they could be parties to it.
  • And so I would deal with the police
  • on a fairly regular basis.
  • And through that, I learned some very interesting things.
  • I guess I was very naive.
  • I remember being in a meeting when there was probably
  • four or five policemen.
  • And when you get that number together,
  • they all talk, talk, talk about what's going on.
  • And I picked up something about a raid that had taken place.
  • And I curious.
  • And I asked what they were talking about.
  • And they told me about a raid that
  • had taken place at a bar on Stone Street here in the city.
  • And I pressed them for information.
  • And I admit I was being a bit devious.
  • I acted like I was really interested.
  • Tell me all about it.
  • I'd love to know.
  • And they told me how they had raided this bar
  • and that these homos and queers had gone running,
  • and how they had threatened to arrest the couple.
  • And they had told them well, you could avoid arrest
  • if you give us a little oral sex here today.
  • That had taken place.
  • And they were talking about how funny that was
  • and how great it was.
  • And I remember saying to them well,
  • "Are you really comfortable with that?
  • Aren't you breaking the law?"
  • And they all laughed.
  • And they thought I was joking.
  • And they said, "You're so naive."
  • And that was the beginning of my understanding
  • of how the police were acting at that time.
  • I was uncomfortable with it.
  • And I went to my boss who was the corporation
  • counselor of the city.
  • And I told him about it.
  • He seemed concerned about it too.
  • He said he would talk to the police chief.
  • That was William Lombard.
  • And about a week later he got back to me
  • and he said "Back off.
  • You need those police to be cooperative.
  • If you're going to try your cases, if you're
  • going to use them as witnesses.
  • Back off.
  • The chief says these are not sanctioned raids,
  • but his guys have to let off a little steam once in a while."
  • So that was what I was told as to that issue.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: And obviously at this time
  • you're not an out gay man.
  • TOM PETRILLO: At this time, I was not--
  • No, I should tell you.
  • If you asked me in the sixties or fifties, sixties, seventies,
  • I would have laughed if you thought I might someday become
  • part of the gay community.
  • I did not know I was gay at that time.
  • It wasn't until late seventies that I had any clue
  • that I might be gay.
  • So I was seeing this really, from the point
  • of view of a straight person.
  • And probably had I identified myself as gay,
  • I might have tried to do more, but I was told to back off.
  • The city was just coming off of dealing with the riots the year
  • before and there were all kinds of issues going on.
  • So I left it alone.
  • I left after two years, went into private practice.
  • And then my dealing with issues was totally different.
  • I was dealing from the point of view of protecting a client.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: So then you got into private practice.
  • Back in the late sixties, early seventies,
  • were you starting to get involved in gay related cases?
  • TOM PETRILLO: I have been in private practice
  • no more than a few months, and I had a case come into me.
  • And it was two women, I believe.
  • And one had died.
  • They had been together twenty years, something like that.
  • And the family had barred the surviving partner
  • from the funeral home and from the service.
  • The newspaper said it was a private service
  • and they had someone at the door of the funeral home
  • to make sure she did not come in.
  • And she came to me and said the funeral
  • is going to be in two days.
  • What can I do?
  • In truth, under the law, she could do nothing.
  • I called the funeral director to see
  • if she could at least come in after hours and pay a visit.
  • I talked to a member of the family
  • who I thought might be a little more cooperative
  • than the elderly parents.
  • This was a younger sibling.
  • No one was interested in doing anything about it.
  • So what we did was we formulated a different way to handle this.
  • I said hold your own funeral.
  • So she put in a notice in the newspaper
  • that there would be a funeral service on a particular day.
  • And then all of the friends were able to come
  • and able to grieve together.
  • But there wasn't a legal solution.
  • It wasn't more than six or eight months after that,
  • I had the second case come in to me related to a gay issue.
  • And it was a couple that one of the partners
  • was in the hospital.
  • Had serious surgery, was not doing very well.
  • But the family again had barred the other partner
  • from going into the hospital.
  • They told the hospital staff this person was not
  • to be admitted.
  • And the hospital staff agreed to that.
  • And they were very careful not to let this person in.
  • I call the hospital.
  • I try to negotiate with them.
  • Got nowhere.
  • Tried to call the family.
  • They weren't even interested in talking about it.
  • So I called the surgeon who had performed the surgery.
  • And I put it in terms of you want your patient to get better
  • don't you?
  • Well, don't you think that relationship means something
  • to them.
  • That maybe that person would heal
  • better if they knew their partner was with them.
  • And interestingly enough, it was a woman physician, surgeon.
  • And she said, "You're right."
  • She said, "I will be at the hospital."
  • She gave me a time and place.
  • "Have your client there."
  • But we're not to tell anybody.
  • And so my client got in to see the partner.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: When did you start seeing things change?
  • But I want to ask it differently.
  • When did you start making things change?
  • TOM PETRILLO: Well, there were disputes
  • that arose with my clients in the estate area.
  • Disputes that arose with my clients
  • over relationships that had gone sour and had to be dissolved.
  • And that caused me to do some creative thinking of how
  • to draft wills for people, how to put together
  • property agreements for people.
  • And finally, I came to the conclusion
  • that you could do some things that would normally not
  • be permitted if you carefully drafted documents
  • for a gay, lesbian, or bisexual person.
  • A will that I would draw for a gay client for example,
  • would look nothing like what I would
  • draw for a straight client.
  • Totally different protective provisions in there.
  • And if somebody looked at it, they wonder why the heck
  • some of those provisions were in there.
  • They are there for a purpose.
  • And a couple of times it was challenged
  • and we were successful.
  • The same way with property agreements.
  • Couples were getting together, buying houses together,
  • and then down the line things go sour
  • and you try to dispose of the issues.
  • Terrible situation, business partnership.
  • But you could define your relationship
  • in agreements property agreements.
  • You could set out the rules that were
  • to be used if the relationship were to be dissolved.
  • And so I created those kinds of documents.
  • And matter of fact GAGV sponsored a couple of seminars
  • that I spoke to people about the need for these specialized
  • provisions.
  • I also became a resource for other lawyers.
  • They would call me and say, "I have a good client.
  • This is the situation.
  • What should I do?
  • I'm doing a will for them.
  • Any special things I should provide?"
  • And I would then try to educate them.
  • And those two things I think were important.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: You also got involved in some employment
  • cases, people being fired.
  • TOM PETRILLO: Yes.
  • One that I can think of in particular
  • involves our old friend Eastman Kodak.
  • I had a man who was in his early fifties.
  • He had been with Kodak a good twenty-five years.
  • Yeah, twenty-five years.
  • He was in research.
  • And doing some very sophisticated work
  • and research on new photographic techniques.
  • He had received yearly, very glowing positive reports.
  • He had also received some awards within Kodak for his work.
  • And this resulted in a promotion.
  • The problem with the promotion was he now had a new boss.
  • And within a couple of weeks, his new boss said to him,
  • "Are you one of those fairies?"
  • And he responded by saying, "My personal life
  • is really no one's business."
  • He was fired within a week.
  • Now New York was an appointment at will state, and it still is.
  • And you could fire someone for any reason you wanted.
  • Being gay or having a sexual orientation of any kind
  • was not a protected class.
  • So there was nothing to do that.
  • I called Kodak's chief attorney, chief counsel.
  • And we talked about it.
  • He said it was a terrible, terrible situation,
  • should never have happened, blah, blah, blah.
  • But, he said "If I allow this person to return to work,
  • it will set a dangerous precedent.
  • Fired people then can try to get their jobs back.
  • And if we set that precedent--" we had a bit of a discussion.
  • And my client never returned to work there.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Can you kind of put it
  • in context for me about what year this was?
  • TOM PETRILLO: That would have been in mid-seventies.
  • A similar case I thought it was going
  • to be easier, because the client came in and said they'd
  • been fired.
  • Somebody had made some anti-gay remarks
  • and he responded to them.
  • And they fired him.
  • But he was covered by a union.
  • So I expected that all we needed to do
  • was to charge up the union to protect him.
  • The union would not protect him.
  • I thought they would at least put forth some possible claims
  • on his behalf.
  • They weren't even willing to do that.
  • They weren't interested in even talking to him or to me
  • about it.
  • So he did not regain his--
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: So eventually things changed at those places.
  • TOM PETRILLO: It was like that in the seventies
  • and early eighties.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: I mentioned interviewing Gordon Urlacher
  • earlier.
  • You had a chance to work with him?
  • TOM PETRILLO: As a private attorney,
  • occasionally would have some contact with the police, yes.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Him being the quote, unquote "police liaison"
  • for the LGBT community, what were your impressions of him
  • and the things he was trying to do?
  • TOM PETRILLO: My impression was that he
  • tried very hard to change the tone of things.
  • And when you change the tone of things at the top,
  • things filter down.
  • And I do think that just being the liaison
  • had a lot to do with some changing
  • attitudes within the police department, that later on you
  • saw come to fruition.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: So let's move thirty, forty years ahead here.
  • Yeah, we got gay marriage passed here in New York state.
  • But there's still a lot of legal challenges out there
  • that need to be addressed.
  • Can you talk to me about some of the things
  • that still particularly in federal level again,
  • estate planning, health care, all that stuff.
  • We're not out of the water yet.
  • TOM PETRILLO: No.
  • I would be happy to address that,
  • but I would like to go back if I may and you asked about areas
  • difficult for gay people.
  • Custody issues, estate issues.
  • I talked about the estate issues.
  • Custody issues became dueling points for lawyers.
  • The threat that you're going to tell
  • the court, the threat you're going to tell others
  • that one of the individuals involved in the marital dispute
  • was gay or lesbian.
  • Lesbians in particular were very fearful of losing
  • custody of their children.
  • And rightfully so, because there were some cases where
  • the very nature of their lesbian relationship
  • was enough for a judge to deny them continued custody.
  • A lawyer would frequently make that implied threat
  • to the other lawyer who represented
  • the gay client, that you really want
  • to keep these things quiet.
  • You really don't want everyone to know why you and your wife
  • broke up do you?
  • Well then, agree to this financial settlement.
  • So that was part of it.
  • The other part of custody came in visitation rights
  • for gay fathers in particular.
  • In the early seventies, I recall a case
  • where a man was accused by his wife of being
  • not a trustworthy person.
  • The basis of it was because he was gay and was cheated on her
  • during the marriage.
  • And she took the position that because he was untrustful
  • that he should not have visitation
  • with the children at all.
  • She wanted no visitation.
  • The argument was made this is totally ridiculous.
  • He has rights.
  • But the judge, being very old, being
  • older and very conservative gave him only
  • scheduled supervised visitation rights with his children.
  • A very terrible way to try to be a good father to your kids.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Actually, before I jump ahead,
  • there are two other questions that just came to mind here.
  • Late seventies you start coming to terms
  • with your own gay feelings.
  • But you certainly be open about it, not in the courts.
  • TOM PETRILLO: Certainly not in the late sixties,
  • early seventies.
  • Probably the best way to illustrate
  • how the courts reacted towards gay lawyers
  • was to tell you about a particular case.
  • I didn't know the person well at all.
  • I didn't know they were even a gay lawyer.
  • But I was in court one day.
  • There were about thirty-five lawyers.
  • There was a calendar call in the morning where
  • everybody shows up, and lawyers are coming in and out.
  • And it's not unusual for someone to be late.
  • And they just call the case at the end.
  • They call this particular case, the lawyer wasn't there.
  • And he showed up a little later perfectly
  • normal acceptable procedure.
  • And the judge greeted him with "Mr. So-and-so,
  • were you out late last night?
  • Were you out with the boys?"
  • And everybody in the courtroom just broke up and laughed.
  • And he tried to maintain some dignity.
  • But obviously, it was a terrible situation.
  • He later left town.
  • He later moved out of town.
  • I understand he moved to the Midwest.
  • That kind of overt anti-gay attitude was not that common.
  • But there was a general understanding
  • that it's best if the court didn't see you as a gay lawyer.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: (unintelligible).
  • You at some point became the lawyer for the gay community.
  • And quite a lot of notoriety about it.
  • If you were gay and you had a legal problem,
  • you had to go see Tom Petrillo.
  • Talk to me about how did that come about, but also want
  • drove you to be there for the gay community?
  • TOM PETRILLO: Initially I saw it as just representing
  • people who needed help and who were being treated terribly
  • and unfairly.
  • Later on it became an issue of I was gay,
  • and I wanted to be sure I helped protect the gay community.
  • But it became word of mouth sort of thing.
  • One person would tell another go see Tom Petrillo.
  • And that really generated a lot of people.
  • But there was also one individual.
  • I don't know if you've heard the name Tony Green.
  • Tony Green was everybody's gay friend.
  • He was the bartender at the Forum.
  • And one day I get--
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: (unintelligible) I'm going to correct you there.
  • We're going to take it back.
  • Tony Green was the bartender at Friar's.
  • TOM PETRILLO: Friar's.
  • I'm sorry.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Let's just start that over.
  • TOM PETRILLO: Yeah, all right.
  • Tony Green was everybody's friend who was a bartender
  • at Friar's.
  • And he, for some reason, he was the kind of person everybody
  • told their problems to.
  • He knew everybody in the gay community
  • and what their problems were.
  • And one day I find on my appointment schedule,
  • there's someone by the name of Jim Smith on my ledger to see.
  • And he came in.
  • I didn't know who he was.
  • And he outlined this legal problem.
  • Really, I couldn't quite understand
  • why he felt he needed a lawyer.
  • So we talked about it.
  • And then he said "I'm really not.
  • I'm really Tony Green."
  • He said, "And I wanted to see how
  • you would treat me because I understand you
  • treat gay people very well."
  • And he said, "I frequently find myself
  • at a loss to know who to tell people to come to see."
  • And Tony Green referred a lot of gay people to me.
  • We became good friends later on.
  • And so that is how my practice grew.
  • The seminars at GAGV--
  • there were a lot of people who were there,
  • and who understood that I knew some
  • of the nuances of how you can get around
  • some of the legal provisions.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Which brings up another question
  • that you can address.
  • With the whole AIDS epidemic hitting us,
  • a lot of legal issues came rising from that, particularly
  • against estate planning, wills, and all that stuff.
  • Talk to me about the AIDS pandemic
  • and how the legal issues even got even more complex.
  • TOM PETRILLO: One issue comes to mind.
  • I had a client who needed surgery
  • at one of the hospitals.
  • And they were refusing to operate on him because they
  • didn't have the right protective uniforms,
  • the protective covering thing needed.
  • And they were afraid to do the surgery without this.
  • It was just a total lack of understanding.
  • But that was everybody's lack of understanding
  • in the gay community as well as the straight community.
  • Issues like that would come up from time to time.
  • People would be thrown out of their apartments
  • because they were living together with another man
  • and someone would assume they're gay
  • and the landlord didn't want them in their apartment.
  • Who knows what it would leave behind when they left.
  • This sort of issue.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: (unintelligible)
  • TOM PETRILLO: You can hear it.
  • Sorry.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Let me just look over my notes here.
  • (unintelligible).
  • WILLIAM REAMY: I believe that one
  • of the people who couldn't get surgery
  • was someone you referred to me.
  • TOM PETRILLO: Yes.
  • From time to time, we would refer clients back and back
  • and forth.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Sure.
  • So let's jump to today.
  • These are questions I ask.
  • The issues that are still out there
  • that still to be addressed, that still
  • need to be addressed legally.
  • For people who are in gay relationships
  • or just gay people who own property or have to have health
  • care proxies or whatever?
  • TOM PETRILLO: Well, if they're not married--
  • CREW: I'm sorry can we start over please?
  • TOM PETRILLO: If they're not married then
  • they face some of the same issues that we've always faced.
  • And that is their relationship is not defined.
  • And so business principles are going
  • to apply to up to dissolutions.
  • You have less of the attitude from the courts, because you
  • have a younger, a little more liberal judiciary
  • now than we had back in the sixties and seventies
  • and eighties.
  • And so the attitude problem is not there as much anymore.
  • Of course, everybody got all excited about marriage
  • in New York.
  • But marriage in New York gave us a few benefits.
  • Bill and I have taken advantage of those.
  • But there's still about one thousand other--
  • and I really mean that.
  • About one thousand other rights and responsibilities out there
  • that come through the federal government.
  • And because the federal government
  • doesn't recognize marriage or doesn't
  • recognize gay relationships or civil unions, those are denied.
  • Social security is the big one.
  • And it's not just getting a social security benefit.
  • It's social security benefit.
  • It's getting a child who may need
  • extra health through social security,
  • those kinds of issues.
  • Immigration is a big thing.
  • You can't-- let me go back.
  • Immigration is a big issue.
  • One partner, unlike a heterosexual person,
  • cannot petition to bring your partner in from another country
  • and become a citizen here.
  • Can't do that.
  • Veteran's benefits are extensive for heterosexual couples.
  • But if you're not in a committed relationship
  • that the federal government respects and honors,
  • then you don't get those benefits either.
  • There's income tax benefits, tremendous income tax benefits.
  • There's benefits for setting up partnerships,
  • certain kinds of partnerships where
  • you can put your assets together with your spouse
  • and save taxes down the line when people die.
  • It's all part of a sophisticated estate planning sort of thing.
  • And gay people, let's be honest, have substantial assets.
  • Many of them don't have children.
  • Though some of course do.
  • And they develop substantial assets
  • that could take advantage of many
  • of these provisions in the federal law.
  • They can't.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: (unintelligible).
  • We're going to get a little personal here.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: I thought of a couple of other things
  • that had to do with my psychiatric training
  • and how the silence affected it.
  • One of the biggest problems for me was I
  • had no supervision regarding my gay patients.
  • I could not talk with anyone about how I felt as a gay man
  • about certain things that were going on with my patients.
  • I had a patient once who was very closeted,
  • and was in a profession where he could not come out.
  • And he was trapped and he committed suicide.
  • And I was powerless to save him.
  • But I had no out, and I had no way of discussing this.
  • I had a supervisor once who I learned who was gay.
  • And I told him that.
  • And he was alarmed.
  • And we never talked about it.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Back to the patient,
  • how would you handle it today?
  • TOM PETRILLO: Well, it's a lot different today because people
  • don't have to be as closeted.
  • And people don't have to be as secretive.
  • And they're not going to be arrested in a police raid.
  • But yes, I would have talked with him
  • openly about the predicament that he found himself in
  • and ways that he could express himself or be with more
  • affirming people or get himself into a situation
  • where he did not feel this conflict that he had.
  • I think I would have been much more relaxed about it
  • rather than dealing with someone who was in the same predicament
  • that I felt myself in.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: OK.
  • (unintelligible).
  • TOM PETRILLO: Bill and I found ourselves
  • over the years sharing clients and patients.
  • Someone might come to me, I recognize that their problem--
  • strike that.
  • People with clients would come to me,
  • and I would recognize that in addition to the legal problem,
  • there might be a psychological problem that
  • was not being dealt with.
  • And initially, I would say go see a good psychiatrist.
  • I was very hesitant to recommend Bill
  • because I felt that someone might see that
  • as a conflict of interest.
  • But I began to realize that there weren't
  • a lot of gay psychiatrists out there that people knew about
  • and who they wanted to go to.
  • So I would recommend him.
  • I would never tell the client that he was gay.
  • That's something we decided a long time ago.
  • We did not share that information.
  • I could share it with you.
  • But he could not share with you.
  • And so it was kind of like one of those things
  • that you say underneath everything.
  • You don't really come out and say it,
  • but people understood that they were
  • going to find someone who was comfortable with their being
  • gay.
  • But then they figured it out after they talked.
  • I suspect a lot of them did not.
  • But some certainly may have.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Oh, I think a lot of them did.
  • And a number of my patients were aware
  • that Tom and I had a relationship, which
  • I think was very helpful because the two of us
  • could model a healthy relationship.
  • And even to the end of my private practice,
  • I had people who would ask me about Tom.
  • TOM PETRILLO: I started--
  • when Bill and I first began living together,
  • we were somewhere and we had a picture taken of the two of us.
  • So I always kept that on my desk in my office.
  • And people's reactions were quite interesting.
  • Gay people would very frequently say, "Are you gay?
  • Do you have a partner?"
  • And I would I would respond with what
  • I thought it was appropriate for that particular situation.
  • Straight people would ask the same thing.
  • I lost a couple of clients who made the conclusion that I
  • must be gay because I had a picture of that person.
  • And they never came back and I had no reason
  • to understand why they wouldn't, except for that.
  • But there were a lot of straight people who simply didn't care.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: I only lost one patient because I was gay.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Talk to me about the decision
  • of getting married.
  • Particularly you coming from a legal standpoint,
  • and a lot of things to deal with up front.
  • TOM PETRILLO: Interestingly enough, we never really
  • talked about it beforehand.
  • Because we never expected in our lifetime to see it.
  • And I think we've said that over and over.
  • We never expected it in our lifetime to see it.
  • I thought down the road, young people, things would change.
  • But once the bill passed, it took us what?
  • An hour to decide?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Suddenly, the realization burst upon us,
  • we can do this?
  • TOM PETRILLO: Yes.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: No, I don't think we have
  • any trouble at all deciding.
  • TOM PETRILLO: We did not focus on
  • whether there would be a lot of benefits for example, income
  • tax wise.
  • To us, there was a greater issue than income tax benefits
  • and social security benefits and things like that.
  • It was an issue of commitment, an issue of being publicly
  • affirmed in your relationship.
  • We belong to a very liberal church
  • that had been affirming gay relationships for years,
  • had different gay ministers since the fifites,
  • the Unitarian Church.
  • And so we were very looking forward
  • to having our relationship celebrated publicly.
  • And so it was really easy decision.
  • Now you asked about the consequences?
  • We got a check back for the first time ever
  • from New York State because we jointly filed our income tax.
  • So there is some benefits, you see.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: But I never could have predicted
  • the feeling that came from expressing
  • our commitment in public.
  • It really was a great feeling.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Years from now, when history looks back
  • at the two of you--
  • I'm going to ask this to both of you individually.
  • Tom, we'll start with you.
  • What do you want people to look back at you?
  • How do you want history to reflect upon you?
  • What do you want people to know about who you were
  • and what you did to make Rochester
  • a better place for lesbians and gays to make this their home?
  • TOM PETRILLO: I would like them simply
  • to remember that I was a good lawyer, open with people
  • of all kinds, particularly helpful to gay,
  • lesbian, bisexual, and transgender clients
  • and their legal matters.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: And similar question, almost the same.
  • And this could be from your legal profession,
  • social activism, whatever.
  • Again, looking back at all those year and everything
  • you've done, what are you most proud of?
  • TOM PETRILLO: I think I'm most proud of having waged
  • some battles on behalf of some gay clients
  • where there really wasn't a chance in hell
  • that we were going to win.
  • But we've waged them any way.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Bill, same kind of question.
  • How do you want history to reflect upon you
  • for what you've done?
  • WILLIAM REAMY: Well, when I decided
  • to close down my private practice last year
  • and told people about it, I received a lot of eulogies
  • from people.
  • It was kind of like having a seven month long funeral.
  • And people told me--
  • I think some of the things that I
  • liked the best were they told me that I was caring
  • and that I was non-judgmental.
  • I see what I have done more in terms of personal terms.
  • I'm not a public person.
  • I haven't gotten out and led a charge.
  • I've just done my bit day by day to help people.
  • So I'd like to think that I was there
  • as someone who understood and was there
  • as a mooring for people, someone people could hold on
  • to and carry something home with them, carry something with them
  • after they left me.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: One more question comes to mind.
  • This is kind of a point of view question for each of you.
  • Bill, he's on you so I'll start with you.
  • In everything that we have here in Rochester
  • for gay resources, the Gay Alliance,
  • we have things like ImageOut film festival.
  • We've got people like you who, you
  • were championing the rights for gays and lesbians.
  • We have a history of being a champion for the underdogs.
  • What is it in your opinion about Rochester,
  • a city the size of of Rochester and why
  • we are so much at the forefront of, I would just
  • say in general, civil rights?
  • Particularly, when you look at the history of gay activism
  • across the country, Rochester is right there at the forefront.
  • TOM PETRILLO: Susan B. Anthony is there,
  • Frederick Douglass is there as part of our history.
  • And they have created their work way back then,
  • it has created a culture that's pervades pretty much all
  • of Rochester in terms of helping other people,
  • in terms of stepping up when you need to step up.
  • Volunteerism for example, in the city
  • is very high rate compared to other cities.
  • And we're also a fairly well educated population.
  • And that makes a difference.
  • I didn't mean to interrupt.
  • WILLIAM REAMY: No that's OK.
  • I'm not sure I can do any better than that.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Well, thank you both.
  • It was a pleasure.
  • TOM PETRILLO: OK.
  • Had fun.
  • KEVIN INDOVINO: Brian's going to get those microphones off
  • of you.
  • TOM PETRILLO: Yep.