A hypocrite of circumstance

The epithet ‘hypocrite’ is a strong term, and is a heavy emotion-laden (often angry) condemnation to throw around. In some communities it is sometimes aimed at those who while being a perceived member of a community, or is a professed supporter of some action beneficial to that community, denies supporting that beneficial action to protect their position within a government or corporation. Is the imposition of such a label, epithet or condemnation a valid action? If someone is in a position where activism is possible, where a social change agenda can be pushed, is it incumbent upon that person to do so? and if they don’t, is the label valid then? Do such people deserve anger or pity for their circumstance?

In my opinion, if Penny Wong (Australian Federal Environment Minister), as an individual human being, believes in extending marriage to same-sex couples, but is compelled to deny it as a result of her occupation (cabinet minister); then she is a hypocrite of circumstance. Her circumstance compels her to hypocracy, in that she is forced by her position to act in opposition to her beliefs. This scenario may be played out through many different occupations, and from many beliefs and standpoints.
I imagine that it must gall her to have to publicly declare her agreement with laws that state that she is less worthy of the same rights and privileges than any straight person in her workplace.
I am not angry at her for her hypocracy, I pity her for being compelled to be a hypocrite by the laws of this land and the expectations of party unity and patriarchy.