At rare moments in American history, the stars align in favor of events so dramatic that they would seem absurdly contrived if manufactured by a novelist or a Hollywood screenwriter. Take, for example, the coinciding deaths of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams – former adversaries-turned-confidants – on the nation’s 50th anniversary. Or consider the living allegory that was the Scopes trial, or even red-baiting Richard Nixon’s journey to China in 1972.

Enter Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

This week in San Francisco, oral arguments began in a case that – if ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court – could make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. The case is made even more distinctive by the team that is representing the plaintiff. Ted Olson – arguably the most successful Republican attorney in America and the man whose argument in Bush v. Gore delivered the White House to George W. Bush – has joined with his liberal adversary in that case, David Boies, to challenge California Proposition 8, which outlaws gay marriage.

Despite its transformative potential, the case has elicited criticism from some gay rights organizations and skepticism from a myriad of legal scholars. Many believe Olson and Boies are reaching too far, too fast.

At best, commentators approach the case with ambivalence, almost as if they are already preparing themselves for an inevitable setback. Given the bitter disappointment of the gay rights community in the aftermath of Prop 8’s passage and the ballot defeat of gay marriage in Maine, this impulse is understandable.

Yet I refuse to believe that gay rights supporters do not feel, at some level, excited about the potential of the case. This exhilaration does not have to be rejected as irrational or unrealistic. For several reasons, Perry is just what the marriage equality cause needs.

First of all, the legal prognosis for the case is not as dire as many analysts suggest. If Perry is ultimately taken all the way to the Supreme Court, recent casework has set a clear precedent for the Court to decide Perry in the plaintiffs’ favor. The task at hand is to make the justices feel comfortable about striking down laws in as many as 45 states. Having a staunch conservative leading the case, especially one so admired as Olson, is the best way to do so.

But even if the dire outlook of the case proves accurate, Perry is still laudable. The marriage equality movement is at a crossroads. The state-by-state strategy has largely run its course, achieving full equality in only five states and Washington, D.C.

Each rendition of statewide voting on same-sex marriage reinforces the notion that it is acceptable to subject gay rights to majority rule. Continuing to rely on this limited strategy poses greater risk than the road taken by Perry. Issues of equality before the law belong in the courts, not at the voting booth.

The case’s greatest political potential may lie in the imagery provided by Olson’s involvement. Every conservative who reads or hears about the case will take notice that the attorney who made Bush’s presidency a reality is carrying the banner of gay marriage.

One of the most pernicious characteristics of American society is that many people live completely isolated from those who disagree with them politically. Sometimes all it takes to disrupt herd mentality is one person of a similar political disposition voicing disagreement. Not all – or even many – conservatives are likely to be immediately swayed by Olson’s role. But all conservatives will have some thinking to do.

Furthermore, the case provides a platform for Olson to begin to break down rigid ideological identities and provide a new vocabulary for the discussion of gay marriage. Many Americans conform to pre-set categories, like “social conservative,” and are not even cognizant of the language to identify themselves as conservatives who support gay marriage. Just last week, however, Olson penned an essay for Newsweek entitled, “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.”

On the other side, members of the gay rights movement must not consider themselves immune to the herd mentality of their conservative opponents. Perry should be a wake-up call that there is potential to find supporters in unlikely places. Doing so will require the recognition that walking lock step with the Democratic Party is not the most viable strategy to advance marriage equality. Vigorously supporting the rare Republican candidate who supports gay marriage should be a priority of gay rights organizations.

The legal journey of Perry v. Schwarzenegger may last for much of this new decade. In the meantime, however, it can provide just the shot in the arm the marriage equality movement needs to regroup, redouble its efforts and fundamentally reshape American political discourse.

Sam Harbourt is a senior in the School of Foreign Service. He can be reached at harbourtthehoya.com. THE PRAGMATIC PROGRESSIVE appears every other Friday.”