- unitid
-
{"value"=>"2838", "type"=>"local_call"}
{"value"=>"993040", "type"=>"local_mss"}
- unitdate
-
{"value"=>"1972", "type"=>"inclusive", "normal"=>"1972"}
- date_inclusive_start
-
1972
- date_inclusive_end
-
1972
- keydate
-
1972
- date_start
-
1972
- date_end
-
1972
- unittitle
-
{"value"=>"Tape 4 of 7. National Gay Conference, Chicago"}
- scopecontent
-
{"value"=>"<p>CONTINUED. One side only. Someone [Manford?] moves that the Conference not endorse any candidate. A brief discussion follows on the motion during which the candidacy of Shirley Chisholm is considered. Most of the speakers support the motion, the main reason being that they do not feel that they are authorized to represent any view other than their own. Someone reminds the Conference that its original purpose was not to endorse anyone but to prepare strategies for the upcoming conventions. A representative says that everyone at the conference knows that \"we do not represent gay America, we are a portion... but what may come out at this conference is that if we do have another one we definitely will have [gay America] here the next time\"; Manford representing Gays at Columbia gives two reasons why he endorses the motion not to endorse any candidate: because it is the law that if a campus group endorses a political candidate they lose their tax-exempt status, and he suggest that it is not worth the risk they don't know what that politician is going to do in the future. \"We all know that in the case of [New York City Mayor] Lindsay we have gotten lip service and when it came to concrete action we got nothing out of him. We should owe no debts, we should demand only responsible action, and when they're elected they're responsible to their constituents. We don't owe them [elected representatives] anything. They owe us representation\".</p>"}