Let me say that I agree with everything you wrote. No problems or issues there. Yes, of course, +Leo was given the full weight. Yet some things were taken away from him too. No one doubted or questioned that +Leo was first among other patriarchs. The Orthodox still recognize that. We are discussing not if but what that entails.
Our non-communion is not based on ranking but on theological differences; we simply do not profess the same faith (as the Orthodox see it).
I am Serbian Orthodox and we really don't consider ourselves to be "under" EP's omophorion; I would venture to say the Church of Greece is held captive by him, but his presence is a symbolic representation of our faith and in that sense he does reflect all of us to the world.
Of course... I completely agree, and like I said, I'm not here to tackle that issue. :)
However, I am interested in your thoughts on how easily a patriarchate can be moved...it's something I've been asking myself and haven't answered to my own satisfaction. Almost no reason why New York should not be a quasi-patriarchate at this point (although these things work differently in the Latin church). But then again, why is Baltimore the Primatial see of America? And why Canterbury and not London?
History is inextricably woven in to the rights and status of a patriarchate...I suppose there's no *theological* reason why one can't be moved, but maybe geographical tradition is at least as worth defending (where it can be anyway) as other aspects of tradition.