Proposition Hate: Meet The Funders

by tristero

In a previous post on the anti-marriage initiative in California called Proposition 8 (aka Prop Hate), I discussed one funder of this hateful proposal, the odious Howard Ahmanson, a well-known christianist extremist.

Now, here’s another, the less-well-known Vineyard Group of Mesa, AZ who donated $35,000 to the National Organization for Marriage of Princeton, NJ, one of the prime movers behind Prop Hate. (Email me if you need back up for this).

Turns out that Broc Hiatt of the Vineyard Group is a director of the Institute for American Values, a think tank that runs websites like The Happiest Wives where we learn that, among other things, “a breadwinning husband,” wives “who stay at home,” and “shared religious attendance” make for Stepford contented wives. Perhaps the oddest criteria for happy wives, however, is “traditional gender attitudes:”

Wives who hold more traditional gender attitudes—e.g., who believe that wives should focus more on nurturing/homemaking and husbands should focus more on breadwinning—are happier than wives who hold more feminist attitudes. One reason this may be the case is that traditional-minded wives probably have lower expectations of what their husbands can and should do for them emotionally and practically. We also find that more traditional-minded wives spend more quality time with their husbands, perhaps because they are less likely to argue with their husbands about housework and childcare.

Right. If you want a happy marriage, expect little to nothing from your hubby, and don’t argue. Just as long as he stays out of the house, working his butt off.

In other words, the people behind Prop Hate aren’t promoting marriage in general, but a particular kind of marriage: A patriarchy of the kind literally illustrated on their website. And again, as noted in my previous post, the role that they assign to religion in this kind of marriage brings up disturbing church/state issues in the Prop Hate initiative.

Broc Hiatt’s think tank has some other papers worth perusing to get an idea of who these people are. One of the stranger is this one, The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans which opines:

There are racial differences in the consequences of marriage. All in all, Black women appear to receive a smaller marriage premium than White women. Black men appear to receive a smaller marriage premium only in terms of their satisfaction with family life. A major reason for these differentials is that marriages of African Americans are, on average, of lower quality than those of Whites.

Let’s take this at face value, as William Raspberry did, and not as racist cant. Nevertheless, he was struck by this finding in the full report, which somehow did not make it into the executive summary available online:

Our research finds that marriage brings small health benefits to black men — and none to black women. In fact, married black women are significantly less likely to report having excellent health than are unmarried black women.

Actually, there’s no mystery why this information wasn’t in the executive summary. It undermined this confident, pre-ordained conclusion:

On average, married African Americans are wealthier, happier, and choose healthier behaviors than their unmarried peers, and their children typically fare better in life—differences that indeed seem to stem largely from marriage itself.

But there’s an unusual “tell” in their recommendations:

Policies seeking to increase marriage rates and marital quality among African Americans should focus on tax reform, reducing domestic violence, providing culturally-relevant marital education and counseling, and numerous other efforts outlined in the report.

Tax reform, first?

The clear picture that emerges is that one more funder for Prop Hate is actively involved in the advocacy of an extreme rightwing agenda, of which the denial of marriage equality is but one piece.

Vote NO on Prop Hate.