Howard Dean, liberal candidate for DEM Pres. Nomination had an interesting take this morning on Meet the Press.

He said he doesn't support gay "marriage". He said marriage is a religious institution. He says he likes his state's "civil union" policy.

He says it is simply a matter of equal rights.

This seems somewhat consistent with Dave's points.

But I have one follow up question to Dave:

If a non-marriage alternative were allowed, wouldn't this, in your mind, still interfere with your religious views? Even if it isn't infringing on the definition of marriage, wouldn't it still require those religious businesses to pay the benefits of the legally recognized gay partner?