THE NATION : GAY RIGHTS : Historical Imperative: By ‘Tolerating’ Gays, Gingrich Denies Equality

When newly powerful House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) gives direction on controversial issues--for example, the question of the Republican Party’s position on gay rights--Washington takes note. Gingrich is a politician who views his core constituency to be not just conservative Republicans but also the religious right. So it caused a minor explosion recently when, speaking about gays during an interview, Gingrich said, “I think (the Republican) position should be toleration.”

His comment was interpreted by many as a significant change for the GOP in relation to gays and lesbians. Conservatives, eyebrows up to their hair lines, reacted with stiff alarm, liberals with guarded optimism. Professional Gingrich-Watchers in the media have been suspicious of his “conversion.” Some are suggesting that, well, he doesn’t really understand what he is saying, some that he doesn’t really mean it.

Perhaps Gingrich has found all this amusing. For the former college history professor knows what he’s saying, and exactly to which constituency. In fact, the remark does not mean what it seems.

The subtle, politically astute message he has sent is identical to that found in a 218-year-old Virginia legislative proposal that greatly disturbed Thomas Jefferson: thoroughly conservative, if deceptively moderate. The historical key is the word “toleration.”

“It should not be promotion and it should not be condemnation,” Gingrich explained. “Over time, we want to have an explicit bias in favor of heterosexual marriage.” Although Gingrich equated homosexuality with alcoholism in the same interview, when asked how he could then welcome gay Republicans, he said immediately, “Because of the difference between toleration and promotion . . . . Any individual who is in broad agreement with our effort to renew American civilization should be brought into the Republican Party.” Gingrich concluded, “We can be a comfortable party for folks who share a lot of other beliefs with us--but happen to be homosexual.”

Gingrich made his remarks in April, well before the political earth moved in November and just after speaking at a campaign fund raiser for 14-year incumbent Steve Gunderson (R-Wisc.). Gunderson, the first openly gay Republican in the House, was up for reelection. Some political commentators suggested Gingrich’s staunch support of Gunderson was just a political artifice to ensure election of sufficient Republicans for the GOP to gain control of the House.

Gingrich’s passionate personal support of the openly gay Gunderson also threw people. Some have dismissed his remarks as the irrelevant touchie-feelyness of friendship--Gingrich and Gunderson have worked together politically for years; Gingrich knows Rob Morris, Gunderson’s life-partner, and Gunderson is close to Marianne, Gingrich’s wife.

The gay press began a lively debate about the GOP being gay-friendly and “tolerant.” The Hotline, the e-mail political sheet cruising Washington’s Internet, in a psychological portrait accompanying their coverage of the interview, suggested that with Gingrich, political expediency is the norm. “He’s more a political strategist,” the Hotline quoted American Conservative Union’s David A. Keene. “I think his conservatism is more strategic in orientation.” The message for Washington insiders: Gingrich isn’t really a conservative, or Gingrich doesn’t understand “toleration,” or Gingrich doesn’t mean “toleration.”

In fact, that’s all he means. Ask a historian.

Merrill D. Peterson, a retired professor of history at the University of Virginia, offers some answers in an article, “Jefferson and Religious Freedom,” for the Atlantic Monthly. Peterson approaches his topic by noting that, after the American Revolution, Jefferson was disappointed that the 1776 Virginia state constitution had left the religious-establishment clause--making Anglicanism the established religion--in place. At that time, roughly two-thirds of Virginians worshiped in other churches.

A political debate erupted over which modification to Virginia’s constitution to adopt. There were two proposed. In the first, George Mason drafted the Declaration of Rights amendment--which guaranteed “the fullest Toleration in the exercise of religion.” Jefferson, however, opposed use of the word toleration. Eventually, James Madison’s language prevailed. It read: “All men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion.”

“The change,” Peterson writes, “amounted to only a few words, yet it was momentous.” Under the English Act of Toleration--which Mason’s version would have extended--dissenting Protestants, but not Roman Catholics or Jews, were allowed their religious services if they registered their ministers with the government. “The idea of toleration,” Peterson wrote, “assumed an official religion along with the right of the state to grant favor to dissenters or withhold it. Toleration, therefore, fell well short of equality.

“As Thomas Paine said, “Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, and the other of granting it.

“On the principle of toleration, nothing needed to be changed in Virginia law and practice in 1776. Toleration was the status quo. But if the principle of individual freedom and right became the basis of legislation, there must be a sweeping change in the civil and religious life of the commonwealth.”

Under old Virginia laws, heresy was punished by death, and denial of the Holy Trinity with three years of prison. Freethinkers might have their children taken from them. Church attendance was mandatory. The laws were, for the most part, dead letters. But, as Peterson points out, this did not remove the stigma. It was the word equality , not the word tolerance , that changed everything.

Like the Virginian body politic two centuries ago, the GOP is now debating a change in its position on the legal and political place of gays and lesbians. Whether Gunderson will propose the adoption of equality to his party remains an open question for the 104th Congress.

But far from being an expedient politician, Gingrich has been conservative and careful, indeed meticulous, with his word toleration . Whether or not you see this as Paine’s “counterfeit” of intoleration depends on your views, but Gingrich is well aware of the distinction.*