Civil unions for Illinois

[Alcon]

muon,

I've heard that argument before, but I've never heard any "science" for it.  Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that sham marriages are a particularly high proportion of gay domestic partnership cases?  I'm just going to paraphrase the status quo logic here, and I think my issue with it should be evident.

Marriage is broken, because people are abusing entitlements.  Because there are fewer gays, proportionally higher entitlement abuse is likely.  We should allow heterosexuals to marry as stands, but until the system is fixed, we should not allow homosexuals.

This, of course, assumes that the benefits outweigh the costs of entitling more heterosexuals, but not more homosexuals; but no empirical cost-benefits calculations are involved or attempted; and gays are the only ones whose entitlements are contingent on proving their mettle.  Basically, they're required to furnish unspecified proof of an unspecified benefits:cost ratio for including their relationships, and new heterosexual couples aren't.  This seems like distinctly unscientific and unfair public policy to me, or do I misunderstand?