Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

An Up Close Look at the Hate-Fueled Funders Behind Prop. 8

Posted by tristero, Hullabaloo at 8:13 AM on October 28, 2008.


The separation of church and state means nothing to these people.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 


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.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.


Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
TVA Responsible for Yet Another Toxic Coal-Related Spill
So, now is it time for clean energy?
Post by Tara Lohan. January 9, 2009.
Obama Rolls Out Blair, Panetta; Vows 'No Exceptions' to US Values
"We must adhere to our values diligently and with no exceptions." --Barack Obama
Post by Spencer Ackerman. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Boycott
Posted by: QQOblivion on Oct 28, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Heterosexuals should boycott marriage until EVERY American adult has the right to marry whomever they chose.

No one should get married at all until we all can, in my opinion.

The institution of heterosexual marriage has been sullied by the state-sanctioned bigotry associated with it.

You want to "save marriage"? Then let gays marry too! Otherwise, count me out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Boycott Posted by: luzmejor
Misery Loves company...Let Homosexual couples marry!LOL
Posted by: Purple Girl on Oct 28, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ya know it's all find & Dandy for these people to preach their concepts of faith, marriage and reality....But it is NOT appropriate or even Lawful in OUR country to impose those idea on the Rest of US.
Many of our Ancestors ran away from this kind of shit, to giv eUS an opportunity to not be oppressed, abused or Murdered because of it.
Again call me a victim of my Genetics, but as a descendant of Jacobites and Covanents...I don't take well to Religious Domination.
So if you don't beleive in Gay marriage, Don't marry someone of the same sex.Nobodies going to force you into it! Same goes for ProBirthers'...have kids in litters,as Long as you Care for them. Forcing a Woman to give birth is as much a violation of personal Rights as Castrating a man.
This Arguement is as Stupid as it has ever been, Can't marry out of the Clan, Out of the Ethnic background, out of religious doctrine, out of the Race...Give me a Damn Break already This ones a No Brainer!For the Same Reasons the other ones were finally dismissed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since when is extortion a family value?
Posted by: PortlandLiberal on Oct 28, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. My best friend lives in California and has been keeping me updated on Proposition 8.

This is what happened at the end of last week:

Prop 8 Backers Threaten to Out Opponents

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27352726/

Copy of the blackmail letter:

http://www.noonprop8.com/downloads/Prop8ThreatLetter.pdf

My friend later said "Just read a lawyer's comment on another forum. This is actually criminal extortion. Because it was communicated by mail, this makes it a federal case -- of racketeering (in violation of RICO). All it takes is for one of the recipients of this letter to forward it on to the state attorney general, and they will be prosecuted. The case would be won on the pleading alone, because the
threat is in writing and has been publicly acknowledged as official in the media."

Even though she wasn't a recipient, my friend also forwarded everything to the California Attorney General asking him to prosecute to the full extent of the law. The group "only" sent out about 30 letters, but my friend hopes that this would be considered 30 separate counts of extortion. In response to the news, two companies - one is Apple Computers - turned around and each donated $100,000 to the No
on Hate campaign!

The newest this week is that the Yes on Hate people used footage of some kids with sinister music in their latest fear tactic video, without the consent of the parents, who happen to be just fine with gay marriage The parents are outraged and demanding that they pull the video or they will pursue legal action.

The Mormon church is the primary backer of the proposition and it's also coming out now that they were coercing all their members to make
donations to Yes on Hate. After the blackmail stuff went down last week, apparently they suddenly decided that any Mormons outside of
California were "excused."

The stupidity it burns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Proposition 8
Posted by: sunlakedude on Oct 28, 2008 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought the Mormon Church was one of the largest backers of this proposition? If so, they are, once again, on the wrong side of the issue. First they blatantly discriminated against blacks saying that they were "cursed by God". Then, after they rescinded that decree they essentially supported Bu$h's war on Iraq and now this. History has not and will not view that cult kindly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Polygamy Posted by: QQOblivion
Points on Proposition Hate.
Posted by: tap17x on Oct 29, 2008 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Prop. Hate is not so much against gay marriage as such, as they are against anything that furthers gay interests, such as normalizing their lifestyles or their acceptance into society.
2. Basing their opposition on the Bible is bizarre. If every ridiculous "law" in Leviticus were applied, half the population would have to be stoned to death.
3. The state should completely stay out of marriage, which should be a private contract between any two people. (Where children are in the picture, the state should act in their interest.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]