> I think sometimes yes.
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.
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.