Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and State vs Religion

I've been following numerous opinions and blogs RE the HHS mandate and the "compromise that doesn't compromise" and the number of references to Henry VIII and Elizabeth I can't be counted on fingers (or toes, for that matter).  Essentially, the argument goes something like this: Henry assumed control over the Church in England to promote his lustful ways (namely his "marriage" to Anne Boleyn).  Under Elizabeth, the state began wresting control over religion and forming new church.  On the surface, this matches neatly with what the President is doing (actually combining two monarchs into one...a pretty nifty trick).  Just like Henry VIII established himself as the head of the Church in England, so too has Obama, by issuing and supporting the HHS ruling, established his government over the Church (bishops can't even stop their own schools from offering contraceptives to their employees).  Henry had numerous Catholic leaders swear allegiance to the State, and Obama is doing the same thing with this mandate.  Elizabeth used her authority to batter down vestiges of Catholicism, just like Obama is doing now.

There are, however, some big problems with said comparisons.  For one, as Hillaire Belloc points out in his "How the Reformation Happened" what Henry VIII did wasn't really considered that radical.  In fact, Belloc contends that it was not out of the ordinary for a monarch to proclaim himself head of the Church of their region, and eventually, things would get back to normal.  The bishops who supported Henry's claim, if this course of action was indeed not extra-ordinary, most likely thought it expedient and harmless, because when Henry's daughter, Mary Tudor succeeded to the throne, those bishops supported her Catholic reign.  It should also be noted that Henry wasn't essentially anti-Catholic, and didn't make any drastic anti-Catholic measures in terms of worship or doctrine.  The most drastic thing he did was confiscate the money and property of the major religious houses (which was also not out of the ordinary for Catholic monarchs to do).  Of course, this action was the deal breaker, for rather than use the treasure to bolster his own royal coffers, he used it to pay off his debtors.

When Mary ascended to the throne, her Catholicism was embraced by the populace and the clergy (as evidenced in Eamon Duffy's The Stripping of the Altars).  Even the old aristocracy supported her Catholicism.  It was the new aristocracy, those families and gentry that became wealthy off of Henry's plundering of the monasteries, that took offense: if Mary's re-Catholicization continued its course, their wealth would be stripped from them and returned to the religious orders it originate from.  As a consequence, they plotted and schemed to get Elizabeth, who at worst was apathetic in regards to religion, on the throne. Once Elizabeth ascended the throne, these men, the force and strength behind Elizabeth, called the shots and over the course of 50 years, de-Catholicized England. 

Because of the above facts, comparisons between Henry VIII and Elizabeth and Obama are lacking.