The Massachusetts gubernatorial race is closer than ever, with both Attorney General Martha Coakley and former healthcare executive Charlie Baker fighting for victory in this week’s election. As recently as last Friday, a Boston Globe poll had Baker ahead by a remarkable nine points. According to RealClearPolitics, Baker is up by three points as of Thursday. 

In a state where every elected federal official is a member of the Democratic Party, that a Republican gubernatorial candidate is just about tied, and at times even ahead of, the opposition is nothing short of remarkable. Baker, the Republican candidate, is holding his own against the Democratic star who has been supported by everyone from First Lady Michelle Obama to both Bill and Hilary Clinton. 

The reason for this is simple: Baker is more liberal on social issues, particularly gay marriage. The tightness of the Massachusetts race highlights the need for the Republican party to drop its anti-gay marriage position. It must focus on the principals that it was founded upon to make the party relatable. 

Most millenials have more views in common with the Republican Party then they realize. On issues ranging from the economy to foreign policy, many increasingly support the Republican platform of reduced spending and strong leadership. On Wednesday, a Harvard University poll found that 51 percent of voting millenials this year plan to vote Republican and that an all-time low of 43 percent of millenials approve of President Obama.

It’s clear that millenials aren’t unsympathetic to conservative politics, yet the same Harvard poll found that the Republican Party itself was the one most millenials disliked. Social issues prevent young voters from even glancing at the Republican Party’s stance on other matters. Most college students feel most strongly about the right to gay marriage, and they will vote for whoever stands behind it. When a Republican candidate supports gay marriage, however, one of the key inherent barriers for Republican support is removed, and young voters make their decisions based on other issues; often, they like what they see in the Republican candidates.

This notion is highlighted in the unprecedented support that Charlie Baker is receiving in his campaign. Baker is running on a platform of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. He is openly supportive of gay marriage and pro-choice on abortion. 

This allows traditionally Democratic voters to consider examining his previous experience in the healthcare industry and his stances on other issues, such as education and governmental transparency. 

The results are evident: Baker is in a tie with a Democratic heavyweight in a heavily Democratic state. He was even endorsed by the Boston Globe, a generally liberal paper and one of the largest in the Boston metropolitan area. 

In its endorsement, noting that Baker splits from the Republican party on same-sex marriage, the Boston Globe’s editorial board stated that, “effective activist government isn’t built on good intentions…Baker, a former health care executive…has focused principally on making state government work better.” Thus, much like many voters, the Globe decided to endorse Baker for his other positions and previous work. 

The fact is that Baker has a significant chance of winning on November 4th.

Baker is also pro-choice on abortion, a rarity for a high profile Republican candidate. However, the Republican Party doesn’t have to change its stance on this issue, as it is a question that often is independent of party lines; many liberals are pro-life, and vice versa. Same-sex marriage, however, is no longer a debate for most millenials, and it should no longer be a debate for the Republican Party.

First and foremost, the Republican Party should support the right to gay marriage because it is the legally correct thing to do—although one can personally disagree with the practice, that doesn’t give them the right to prevent it for others. Due to the aforementioned reason, however, supporting gay marriage is also the practical decision for the GOP to make. 

If the Republican Party wants to have any future at all in an evolving United States, it will need to make compromises on the social issues that draw so many away from its otherwise supportable beliefs. Acceptance of gay marriage is sweeping across the country; the Supreme Court itself agrees with its legality, as was seen in its recent decision to let stand appeals court rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. The right to same-sex marriage nationwide is inevitable. 

The Republican Party, due to its social positions, is finding it difficult to garner millennial support; various misogynistic statements made by a few Republican officials do not help the party’s cause. By changing its stance that marriage is “a union of one man and one woman,” the GOP can change the tide of negativity that surrounds it. 

Having the Republican Party be pro-gay marriage would allow the next generation to drop its preconceived notions of the party as being homophobic, and give it an opportunity to examine the Republican Party for what it truly stands for - fiscal responsibility, a strong foreign policy and military and a more limited federal government. For young conservatives, the hope is that the Republican establishment realizes this soon enough before it is too late to salvage the party’s flailing reputation.

—Dor Cohen ’16 is the vice president of Brandeis Republicans, president of the Brandeis Pre-Law Society and former director of logistics for Voices of Conservative Youth, an organization aimed at garnering the Republican Party millennial support.