03/18/2010 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Prop 8 Lawyer "Doesn't Know" How Gay Marriage "Threatens Conventional Unions"

If you've spent any time attempting to follow the super-serious worries of those who oppose gay marriage, you'd know that their major concern lies in the deleterious effects this will have on heterosexual -- or, in the parlance of America's brave beauty queen also-rans, "opposite" -- marriage. There's a process involved, and it goes like this:

STEP ONE: Gays are allowed to marry one another.
STEP TWO: Step two happens.
STEP THREE: Marriage ruined for everyone!

Naturally, it's like pulling teeth to get anyone to own up to the blank space that's currently doing all the heavy lifting in the three-step process to the widespread de-sanctifying of everyone's marriage vows. That's why the Associated Press reports this line of questioning between U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker and Proposition 8-supporting lawyer Charles Cooper -- which occurred during a hearing in which Cooper sought to have a lawsuit filed in support of gay marriage thrown out -- as "an unusual exchange."

A federal judge challenged the backers of California's voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday to explain how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional unions, a demand that prompted their lawyer to acknowledge he did not know...

The question is relevant to the assertion that Proposition 8 is constitutionally valid because it furthers the states goal of fostering "naturally procreative relationships," Walker explained.

"What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?" Walker asked.

"My answer is, I don't know. I don't know," Cooper answered.

Cooper later insisted that, "There are things we can't know," and that, "The people of California are entitled to step back and let the experiment unfold in Massachusetts and other places, to see whether our concerns about the health of marital unions have either been confirmed or perhaps they have been completely assuaged." One wonders how such experiments will compare to similar, extant studies on the wedded bliss of their heterosexual counterparts.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]