It is propitious to have two straight grandfathers, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson and renowned trial attorney David Boies, serving as lead counsel in the federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8.

Although some gay legal rights groups say straight, white guys shouldn’t be the only advocates in the federal case seeking to overturn Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), it’s actually a godsend. Because it’s far more compelling to have two straight lawyers portray this as a case about family equality and human dignity, rather than simply a case about gay rights.

After all, straight people, such as Dick and Lynn Cheney for example, certainly want their grandchildren within same-sex unions to have the same rights and opportunities as their grandchildren born into traditional unions.

And, truth be told, our gay legal advocates did not play Proposition 8 correctly when it passed. Instead of attacking the law on federal grounds in federal court, they challenged it on much weaker grounds under state law. Such a move was doomed from the start.

The litigation was a waste. We knew it a week after the election, when our friends on the court voted against hearing the appeal.

Instead, our lawyers persevered. And it proved costly. The challenge stifled the protests that were garnering media attention and sympathy in the aftermath of the ruling. Worse, the suit raised false hopes in this community that the California Supreme Court would nullify Proposition 8.

Our leaders should have filed immediately in federal court on Nov. 5 and asked for a stay of enforcement, at which time protests would have been appropriate at the federal court building and elsewhere.

Had they done this, the public would have seen that this matter is about the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Instead, we saw nothing for six months. When the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8, it was anti-climatic, and the protests were but a whimper compared to those following election night.

Instead of filing in federal court, gay leaders started to fundraise and assemble a new initiative, deluding themselves into thinking a 600,000 vote margin would disappear in a year or two. Thankfully, Olsen and Boies decided to unite on the matter. They may be older, straight, white dudes, but those traits work to our advantage.

Olsen and Boies are two of the most accomplished civil rights lawyers in the country, and they carry great caché with appellate courts, which just happen to be controlled by older, straight, white dudes.

It’s highly likely that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will rule that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection clause of the federal Constitution. The court is composed of a majority of Democratic appointees, and even the Republican appointees are moderate. Its chief judge, Alex Kozinski, has already opined that DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to federal employees in same-sex relationships. Presumably, there will be a three-judge panel hearing the matter, or the full Court of Appeals, or an en-banc panel (11 judges).

Virtually all major legal scholars view same-sex marriage as the logical extension of Lawrence v. Texas. At least six members of the court who ruled in Lawrence viewed discrimination against “gay sex” as being synonymous with bias against gays and lesbians. And if the 9th U.S. Circuit Court rules in our favor, same-sex marriages will resume in California. That is, of course, unless the U.S. Supreme Court orders a stay and decides to review the court’s decision. If it does not do so, however, states in the Western U.S. will not be able to ban same-sex marriages.

The one problem that continues in this litigation is the lack of emphasis on the children of same-sex couples. Here’s the issue: If the court does rule that straight and same-sex couples have equal rights, that’s a big victory. But it will likely be short lived.

This is because people who are single, or single with children, are not going to want to continue subsidizing married couples, either straight or same-sex. The majority of adults in California are single. They will inevitably argue that granting rights and benefits to same-sex couples that are not available to singles is discrimination based on “marital” and “familial” status. They will contend that singles and single parents should not have to pay more in taxes to subsidize straight and same-sex married couples, either with or without children.

So, at some point, folks need to return to the core of the marriage debate: children and the parents who raise and support them.