They can't prove it. They don't have to. They know it is bad because they say it is.

After all the fear-mongering, and lying, and money-laundering the did for the Catholic and LDS Churches, here's an account of what the Prop 8 closing argument was in federal court.

This is-seriously- the very best they could come up with:

In his two-hours-plus closing argument Wednesday, Charles Cooper, the slim, white-haired lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage, evoked the Paul Newman character in “The Verdict,” a man who was out of his depth against a superior legal team.

But Paul Newman was able to lift it in time to save his case. Cooper appeared not to have his heart in his endgame. He didn’t even stay for the Q. and A. part of the news conference after court on Wednesday. Like he had somewhere more important to be in the middle of the afternoon following arguments on a landmark case?

His close was so lame that if you didn’t know better, you’d think he was trying to throw the case. Maybe he was shaken by the fact that some of the defense witnesses had bailed, intimidated by the Boies deposition process. Another defense witness, David Blankenhorn, the president of the Institute for American Values, a group that studies marriage and families, inexplicably ended up helping the plaintiffs when he said that heterosexual couples have been busy “deinstitutionalizing” the institution of marriage, and that adoptive parents are as good as natural parents. He also said that “we will be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage” and give gays human dignity.

Cooper failed to reflect the fervor of the anti-gay-marriage proponents who frothed in 2008, direly warning that marital parity would cause moral damage, hurting children, helping the devil and destroying civilization.

He tepidly offered an apocalyptic warning: “Without the marital relationship, Your Honor, society would come to an end.” He blamed “irresponsible procreation” — even though heterosexuals are the more likely perpetrators.

At one point, Cooper was pressed by the judge, who said, “I don’t mean to be flip,” but went on to ask the lawyer what testimony in the case supports the proposition that the object of marriage is procreation.

Cooper said he didn’t need evidence of that point, surprising the judge, and argued that, even if that was wrong, Judge Walker should uphold the law because the people of California had voted for the same-sex-marriage ban.

Walker seemed bemused, as he did through much of Cooper’s stumbling close. “But the state doesn’t withhold the right to marriage to people who are unable to produce children of their own,” the judge said. “Are you suggesting the state should?” Cooper said no, failing to offer any compelling argument for discriminating against same-sex couples.

Olson was at the top of his game as he concluded the case and got a standing ovation from those watching the proceedings onscreen in the overflow room.

“And I submit, at the end of the day,” he said, “ ‘I don’t know’ and ‘I don’t have to put any evidence,’ with all due respect to Mr. Cooper, does not cut it. It does not cut it when you are taking away the constitutional rights, basic human rights, and human decency from a large group of individuals.”