Then, during oral arguments seeking summary judgment, the Prop 8 proponents claimed “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” but when the court asked them to prove up their conclusion, their attorney said, “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”…

At trial, the Prop 8 proponents smoke-signaled that understood the judge’s [indirect] request for evidence when they told the court they were going to show “23 harmful consequences” of same-sex marriage.

But, instead, the smoke quickly cleared and the supposed representatives of the citizens of California rested their case after calling just a single witness. The proponents did not call same-sex couples to say that they do not believe in same-sex marriage and that civil commitment is sufficient; they did not call a psychologist to say children of same-sex couples suffer from emotional issues more than children of opposite-sex couples; they did not call ordinary citizens to say their same-sex couple neighbors adversely affect their neighborhood; they did not call a teacher to say children of same-sex couples have more behavioral issues in school than children of opposite couples. No, instead Prop 8 proponents called one witness, Davide Blankenhorn, who said marriage is a “private relationship between two consenting adults.”