Constitutional Convention?

Very interesting suggestion in this article by Robert Novak that anti-gay marriage forces, disappointed with the backsliding on the issue at the federal level, are prepared to marshall the forces and seek a Constitutional Convention on the subject.

I've always been intrigued by that avenue of seeking Constitutional change, because it has been unused throughout US history. There are few provisions in the Constitution that have seen similar disuse, and I've always wondered whether, in my lifetime, anyone would seek to revive (or, I guess, utilize for the first time) this provision. Now it seems that I'm going to see at least an attempt made to call a convention.

As I've said before in this blog, I am absolutely opposed to an amendment to the Constitution seeking to define marriage. That said, color me intrigued by this creative method of seeking change. The anti-gay marriage forces may be seen as desperately reaching for straws, but I think that they are a committed group (albeit a group that I think is dead wrong) which has been frustrated at every turn from seeking change through the Federal Government. This provision would allow them to bypass the Feds, as I'm sure it was intended. My guess is that they won't reach the 2/3 of states necessary to even call a convention, and certainly won't come anywhere near the 3/4 of the states necessary to ratify whatever amendment would be agreed upon there. But I salute them for attempting to exercise change through the Constitution, and will be watching to see if this movement gains any traction.