Coming to a Church near you: the not so subtle threats against religious freedom.

In the midst of all the controversy and debate concerning the coalition government's intention (with the support of the Labour Party leader) to introduce a new law on marriage, we seem to have become lost in a mess of discussion on 'equality' and 'diversity' as if diversity somehow means we all must have the same (which suggests the opposite of diversity to me).
When Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister, charged that the Church doesn't "own" marriage she was quite correct, the rituals of the Church came in response to the facts that exist and which had/have always been. The government now claims it has the right to change those facts which suggests that the legislators believe that they do own marriage. This is historically incorrect as the legislation on marriage (which, it is worth mentioning, was based on Canon Law) was introduced to reflect what marriage is; it didn't invent it.
Now, whether you believe that marriage can be changed or not, we can agree that the way in which much of the debate is taking place is rather worrying. Whilst there is clumsy language and scare-mongering on both sides of this debate, it is from the 'liberal' side of politics that some of the more alarming responses appear to be coming. The deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, describes opposition to gay marriage as if it is a piece with homophobia - a quite scandalous and unacceptable claim which could be described as a sort of 'newspeak', forcing change by the subtlety of a threat that, somehow, all those who disagree with the prevailing wisdom of the day are thuggish and unreasonable.
Actually, it seems to be the opposite as far as this particular author is concerned, because threats of protests and disruption (alongside the real threat of legal sanction in the future) are coming from some of those who are arguing in favour of same-sex marriage.
Take the case at the weekend where an activist decided to disrupt a Mass where the Letter on Marriage from the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark was about to be read. The protester filming the priest made it clear that he would be posting the reading of the Pastoral Letter on Youtube. To avoid disruption, the Priest decided not to read the letter and, after a few more moments of the protester trying to encourage people to walk out of the Church with him (none did, I believe), the protester left. You can watch it yourself here: http://www.youtube.co/watch?v=6em7Yy-MjEc
Now, think this through - a priest is about to read a letter expressing the traditional view on marriage of the Catholic Church and encouraging the faithful to uphold it in the present discussion and he is, by the direct action of the protester, prevented from doing so. Is this religious freedom?
It is made clear that the encounter will be put on Youtube - this stinks of the activities of the secret police who film the Catholic and Anglican priests in Zimbabwe in case they preach against the official line. Is this  freedom of speech?
The priest, who has not given his permission to be filmed, is now on Youtube so he could be open to verbal and physical threat. You only have to look at some of the comments to see the abuse against this blameless priest. Is this freedom from threat to personal safety?
Bear in mind that nobody has been given a chance to express an opinion through the ballot box on an issue fundamental to our society, yet it is being pushed in the hope of enactment before the next General Election, not least by the liberal-minded Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron.
This is all food for thought and really unpleasant.

Who to vote for: Major or Minor?

The voting slips are out and it is time to decide who to vote for....exciting hey? Well, no - not really. Who do I want to support for the leadership of the Labour Party? It isn't easy at all; David Miliband doesn't represent enough of a radical break with the Brown/Blair past, a fault for all of the male candidates for the leadership as it happens. They were all, whatever Ed Miliband might now claim, tied in with the decision to go to war in Iraq, to support small-minded policies on immigration, not oppose the removal of the 10% tax bracket for the lower-paid, to introduce the appalling ID card system, support the sort-touch regulation of the markets and be mealy-mouthed in dealing with the issue of European Union expansion.

So, one might ask, why not support Diane Abbott? Well, putting aside the whole issue of wanting somebody electable for the British public, how is it possible to support somebody for whom disloyalty has always been a watchword? She is a rentaquote and in love with her media image and, more worryingly, doesn't let her left-wing politics translate into sending her son to a state school, despite her long-held political views. So, actually, not really that different to the rest of the candidates.

I like Andy Burnham's ideas on tax and think he is more human than the rest of the candidates, although he hasn't much hope of winning. The cards have been too heavily stacked against him from the beginning. Having said that, he represents the place he was raised (not a Scouser, as it happens, but in Leigh, Greater Manchester), sounds different from the other candidates and his heart appears to be in the right place. Also, I admit, his being a Catholic helps his case for me although I am not that sure whether I am happy with him on a few issues.

So - that is my first vote out of the way...what about my second and third? Not Diane Abbott, disloyalty always annoys me. I dismiss support for Ed Balls for the same reason - he was the main cheerleader for Gordon Brown when they spent years trying to push Blair out with no concern of the consequences for the party. So Ed M, or David M?

I took the 'compatibilty test' with The Guardian and it came up with Ed but there is a something of the born-again lefty about Ed; I am sure he will revert to type once elected. As for David M - he looks the part, but so what? He has held a major Office of State and served with a certain amount of panache, but that is no reason to elect him. He rightly points out the good things Labour did in Government and does not resile from the mistakes, which is a reason to show him some respect.

The truth is, I am not sure and don't dislike either of them enough to oppose them by voting for the other.

I am no nearer an answer - any suggestions?
.