Let's put Jamie Kirchick in the time machine:
- 1965: Give Up the Losing Fight on Communism, GOP
- 1977: Give Up the Losing Fight on Taxes, GOP
- 1993: Give Up the Losing Fight on Guns, GOP
- 2007: Give Up the Losing Fight on Terrorism, GOP
I know Jamie and consider him a friend, but he's just dug into the bunker on this issue, and there's no point arguing with him. But if the gay-marriage constituency doesn't amount to a majority in California, what exactly is the electoral calculus by which being pro-gay-marriage is a winner for the GOP?
Special pleading aside, Kirchick's argument here is much like the argument that Republicans should support amnesty for illegal aliens. Even though polls consistently show that amnesty is unpopular, we are told that the GOP simply must support it or risk losing a key constituency. But the electoral calculus makes no sense.
This is one of those things where perception is the real problem. The Left frames the issue as one of "rights" and "tolerance," then depict opponents of their agenda as intolerant oppressors. It's like Stan in "The Life of Brian," demanding to be called Loretta: "Don't you oppress me!"
Excuse me for not playing nicely with others.
UPDATE: Ed Whelan suggests that Kirchick mischaracterizes the discussion at last month's National Review Institute.
UPDATE II: Another party I wasn't invited to.