That's why I get so pissed off when a prominent gay person (no names in particular come to mind, but I've heard it said) says they're not for gay marriage. It's selfish, because someone's going to see that and think they speak for all gay people. Will Young almost did it on Question Time a number of weeks back. He skirted around the issue when he had an opportunity to represent the community as a whole.
But does Will Young represent anyone other than himself? Can he? Should he? Would we expect Peter Hitchens to suppress his personal beliefs in order to represent the majority heterosexual point of view? Is Germaine Greer everywoman?
When a prominent gay person is invited onto a national stage to talk about politics, rather than fashion or personal 'identity' issues, it's exciting (because rare). It's disappointing when I don't agree with them, but contrary to Mailite opinion there is no 'gay mafia', no community-wide pinkthink. If the media were genuinely diverse, there would be plenty of queer voices opposing Will Young. The media aren't diverse. That's not Will Young's fault.
If I were invited onto Question Time, which 'communities' would I be expected to represent? I would betray them all. In any case, here on Mailwatch, I've found myself defending, among others, christians (although I'm not a churchgoer), fat people (I'm not obese) and opponents of pornography (I'm an occasional consumer). Why should there be a particular onus on Will Young to speak up for gay marriage, simply because he is gay?
Having said that, like you, I often feel betrayed by high-profile people I expect to speak up or speak out for the things I believe in. It's a rotten system that grants all the RightMinds people space to air their indistinguishable opinions, while excluding so many diverse and thought-provoking alternatives. Vive la révolution