Now whether it's a good idea to (potentially) damage the democratic system because of those ideals is a more complicated issue. I think sometimes yes.
Of course, in context of the NYTimes it might well be considered hypocrisy.
Damaging democracy to impose your ideal on the majority is called tyranny. Simply put, you are a totalitarian. Now note that I am not judging. I'm just trying to be accurate and to the point.
What I meant to say was that there are many scenarios where a person's own moral beliefs conflict with a democratically elected government's stance, and the moral beliefs win out. I belief that in some cases that is justified, and I also belief that believing so is not even close to being in favor of totalitarianism. I'm speaking of individual convictions, not making some claim about how to rule a society.
Some examples where I feel moral beliefs rightly trump the democratic consensus:
- a couple I know taking in asylum seekers about a decade ago because of a whole complicated kerfuffle, risking quite a bit because it's against the law.
- releasing classified documents such as these
- downloading tons of JSTOR publications because they should be publicly accessible
- the many people engaging in unsanctioned but otherwise peaceful protest, often leading to arrest.
Edit: In hindsight I could've simplified this comment by saying that it is an unfair and somewhat incendiary leap to equate promoting totalitarianism with a personal moral belief applied to specific circumstances.
For the case of gay marriage, I don't believe the constitution is written so as to exclude it as a valid marital contract.