Matthew Head sent me this letter that I thought warranted discussion…
I recently learned from this article that Doug Manchester, the owner of San Diego's Manchester Grand Hyatt — a hotel I assume is often used by San Diego Comicon attendees — actively opposes gay marriage in California. I think that some San Diego attendees might want to know whether or not their dollars are going to this man (although I know it's supposed to be ridiculously difficult to get a hotel in San Diego around the con). I would love it if every hotel in San Diego were full for the con except for the Manchester Grand Hyatt, but I also know that's very unlikely. Still, this might be information that some of your blog readers would find useful.
Useful? I don't know. I'm a strong believer that anyone should be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice, and I also often stay at that hotel when I attend Comic-Con International. Still, I don't see the point of boycotting that hotel. There is zero chance that it won't be booked to capacity during the con…and if convention attendees don't take the rooms available to them at the convention rate, they'll just be full of people paying the higher, normal rate. Mr. Manchester would probably love that.
I actually don't see the point of most boycotts unless it's to make the boycotter feel like they're doing something. Very few boycotts have any economic impact on the target…and often when they do, they penalize the wrong people. If you could somehow cause the Manchester Grand Hyatt to be empty those days, they'd probably lay off bellmen and cleaning ladies, and those people would suffer a lot more than Mr. Manchester. More likely, as I say, the place will be full and if there's any public awareness at all, it would appear under a headline that said something like, "Hyatt Boycott Fails." It would come across as a lack of support for your cause.
The article says that Mr. Manchester has donated cash to try and get something called "The California Marriage Protection Act" on the November ballot. My suspicion is that its proponents are less interested in defining wedlock as between a man and a woman than they are in driving right-wing voters to the polls that month. John McCain isn't likely to be competitive in this state and that could lead to a lot of Republicans staying home and not voting in Congressional or state races. The infamous Rove Playbook seems to suggest that a "red meat" initiative of this kind could get out more of the G.O.P. race. I don't think it can possibly pass but it might get a few more Republicans elected. (It also may not qualify for the ballot. The deadline for signatures is Monday.)