Politicians are pretty tough cookies. They deal with press heckling, approval ratings, public outcry. They've typically endured years of arduous education, tireless campaign hours and personal sacrifice to earn their slot in their respective governments. Of course, they're not impervious to outside pressure. Concessions have to be made, egos have to be stroked, public unity must be protected. While certainly foreign policy comes into play, some of the most divisive domestic political issues stem from religious leaders.

Consider the story we posted yesterday on Archbishop Vincent Nichols and friend's threat to withhold social services if Britain's Parliament passes pro-gay legislation. Despite the fact that the proposed vote wouldn't happen until April, Nichols released a statement reaffirming the church's resistant stance. Then, a conservative religious group - satirically dubbed Coherent and Cohesive Voices - placed an ad urging voters to write to Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly opposing the fantastical vote.

In response to this preemptive holy war, Minister of Equality Meg Munn (pictured) has released a statement ensuring voters and religious leaders alike that the laws will not bring a flood of faggotry into their protective enclaves.

The Government is seeking to strike a balance between protecting the rights of religious groups and preventing discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people... There are a number of misconceptions about what these regulations will cover and what is being considered. For example, no-one is proposing that schools will have to promote homosexuality or that a priest will have to bless same sex couples.

While Mumm's certainly trying to set the record straight, consider this: earlier this month several religious leaders (Nichols included) fought against the government's proposed "faith quota" in religious schools. The government hoped faith-based schools would welcome both secular students and students of different faith. Not the surprisingly, the plan came across as an affront to spiritual schooling and leaders promptly (successfully) mobilized against the government.

To some this response may seem a bit reactionary, rather than revolutionary, as true legislative progress requires. Others read it as a government's attempt to make social transition as smooth as possible. We're somewhere in the middle, actually. You don't want to impede someone's religious values, but you certainly don't want to promote discrimination. Can there be a middle ground?