"Gay marriage in Scotland is not in the same league under any definition."
You obviously don't understand the aims and functions of Amnesty International. It's not about only dealing with human rights abuses if they affect large numbers of people - it's about 'human rights abuse'. There's a difference.
Amnesty will fight on behalf of a single person if necessary, and it has done just that on many occasions.
My original point is not about whether this should be a concern of Amnesty's, as obviously it should, but whether Amnesty should be spending what must, after all, be limited resources (not just financial) on a relatively, and I repeat relatively, trivial issue.
"its about human rights abuses and quite frankly i think persecution is a higher priority."
I assume that there are people at Amnesty who are capable of making such judgements. Prioritising human rights issues is always a risky business, because of course someone whose human rights are being denied doesn't have to be in some far-flung land, ruled by a despot - there are people in every major city in the UK who are being denied their human rights on a daily basis.
Amnesty identifies cases which, in its opinion, are worthy of support, and it provides that support if it can. Most of us know nothing of Amnesty's daily work, but from time to time along comes a case, like the one that precipitated this thread, and people start making judgements - usually based on a little knowledge and a lot of opinion.