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.