Two excellent articles, from Michael Roffen (DOC) and James Behrens (RTF), on the legal implications of the Archbishop of Canterbury's proposals, via Ruth Gledhill. They set out the legal detail that establishes quite why this goes beyond the precedent set in other areas and strikes at our fundamental values and constitutional settlement.
I think some people are giving the Archbishop of Canterbury an easy ride because they assume that if you were able to see through the fog of dense language he would be saying something sensible. The articles above, and hopefully my own analysis, show that is not the case. This isn't just PR naivete but a genuine and horrific failure of judgement. Beyond that, we need to stop seeing dense language as a signal for intellect and deep thinking. The clarity of expression in Roffen and Behrens' articles demonstrates far greater insight and subtlety of thought than the convoluted imprecision of Williams' speech (PDF).
For a, much needed, lighter note the Daily Mash is excellent.