« Covering | Main | Womanless wedding »
Jan 25, 2006
Ends v. Means, or "Why I'll never be a politician"
I've often said (and I'm sure I've said so here, more than once) that I don't believe that the ends justify the means. I would really (really!) be interested in other people's views on that subject. Do they, sometimes? Is there some end out there that is so wonderful that otherwise repulsive means justify it? Consider, for example, the poll on Ambivalent Imbroglio's blog: "If you could save a million lives by torturing one person, would you do it?" The results suggest that 61% of people would answer in the affirmative (out of 178 people at the time of this writing). I was, incidentally, one of the 4% that answered 'no'.
Or, what about the Maryland democrats? Although arguing that they favor same-sex marriage, they are seeking a delay of any order from the MD Court of Appeals on a Circuit Judge's order making the current ban on same-sex marriage invalid on constitutional grounds.
Maryland Democrats concerned about the political fallout from last week's court ruling on same-sex marriage are considering a plan to block any final court ruling from taking effect until after the November elections.
The proposal would be offered in legislation by Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery) that would freeze any decision from the state's highest court until the General Assembly has time to evaluate it.
What we're trying to do is see if we can craft a bill allowing the legislature to seek an injunction, at least until 2007, when we'll have the opportunity to consider a constitutional amendment" banning same-sex marriage, Simmons said.
Later, in that same article:
Although many Democrats, including Simmons, said they support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, they also said they recognize that the ruling could hurt the party during key elections this year -- the governor's office and a U.S. Senate seat are at stake.
So, they support the right to marry, but just not now. Not when it could potentially affect them. Don't get me wrong, I want Democrats in control in that state as much as the next liberal. Indeed, if they were, the odds of a Constitutional Amendment banning such marriages actually making it out of the legislature might be greatly reduced. Does this political reality, potentially dictated by that state's voter composition, justify these means? Or, is it better in the long-run (or, even the short-run) to stand up for your beliefs now and risk losing?
I would always opt for the latter. I think.
07:57 AM in Gay civil rights | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452cb6e69e200d834a4744369e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ends v. Means, or "Why I'll never be a politician":
Comments
I'd have to go with the "stand up now" alternative, too. I'm way too cynical when it comes to politicians, though. If the Democrats (or ANY politicians) are willing to compromise their beliefs to get elected in the first place, why does anyone think they'll go back and vote according to those beliefs once in office? Once they're in office, then their concerns become STAYING in office ... and in order to do that, they again cater to the group that they believes will get them re-elected, regardless of their beliefs.
Posted by: Jami | Jan 25, 2006 11:02:32 AM
This is one I constantly struggle with -- especially here in DC working with Congress. For example, would I rather see more Dems in Congress and have them vote "the wrong way" on some issues (especially when they aren't going to impact to overall outcome) or have them be "good Dems" but risk losing their seats because of certain votes? After all, the political reality is the fewer Dems in Congress, the more powerful the other side.
Where I fall on that generally ends up being a function of how important the issue is to me personally. Even though it burns me up, however, I can always rationalize a vote that I don't like by remembering that Members of Congress are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents (whether I agree or not) rather than their party or even their own personal views.
With the MD folks, it's a question of strategy, long-term v. short-term gains. This is often the difference too between the approaches of "inside-the-beltway" advocates and grassroots leaders too... no easy answer. Which approach will serve the end better?
I guess I would tend to support the end which achieves the goal most effectively, but how is one to know that? What if the short-term strategy permanently closes off further advances that might have been achieved? But it's also awfully offensive to say to someone whose rights are being trammeled -- "Oh, just wait; we'll get to you when the political atmosphere is right." That's a dangerous luxury that I don't think we can afford. We'd never have any progess if folks weren't willing to push the envelope at personal and political risk.
A tough balancing act.
Posted by: Kristine | Jan 25, 2006 11:20:30 AM
I'm a Democrat thru and thru, but this is an example of what's wrong with the party. They are too scared to stand up for what America wants, social and economic justice. This will leave them increasingly further behind the republicans and will leave the US increasingly further behind the rest of the first world. If it doesn't begin in the state legislatures and the state courts I don't know where it can start.
Posted by: Rayne of Terror | Jan 26, 2006 7:40:11 AM
Check out this link to an interesting article on LiveScience headlined: "Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds".
Posted by: Jami | Jan 26, 2006 8:56:57 AM
As a democratic, transgender, lesbian Marylander I was ecstatic to hear that the MD legislature had struck down the ban on same sex marriage. I had not seen that the dems are calling for a delay so that they can get themselves reelected first. As it's already been mentioned it is all too easy to put this aside now and then conveniently forget about it later and all too routine in politics. Any organized delay in moving forward with this is morally reprehensible.
Posted by: Nicole Thomas | Jan 27, 2006 11:03:10 AM
