Sugar-coating for a mindset of certain "conservatives" that a family group should consist of a man holding all of the power, and his property (aka his wife or wives and children).
All other possible groupings are anathema to the holders of this mindset since they threaten the power, and hence the only source of mental well-being the holder has.
I've got no kids, but my sister does, so I got a little family-values education from her. Though I still don't know why she found "Beavis and Butthead" objectionable (Really, I don't. There's more violence on cop shows, more sex on "Friends", more cussing on "ER", and more idiocy on the evening news), I do understand why she blocked MTV on the family television: way too many pro-alcohol moments during the Spring Break specials. I mean, what's MTV's primary audience? College students? Or impressionable pre-teens?

Anyway, the greatest objection to the stereotypical "family values" candidate or organization is that they push a very narrow definition of "family"--a mother, a father, and some kids, all belonging to a fundamentalist Christian church--and that they sometimes demonize families that do not fit their rigid definition. Additionally, they have been known to designate issues like abortion, arts funding, music and television censorship, and civil rights as "family values" issues, when they clearly have nothing to do with families.

Actually, real family values do not conform to any political party's agenda. The best defenders of family values are families themselves. Something that important should not be turned over to a bunch of politicians.
The above phrase has been the buzz words of every election since the Reagan Administration. "Family Values" from a political standpoint has so far, taken to form of enacting legistation that protects children, fosters censorship, and limits the rights of nontraditional families. Most of the infringements of the Bill of Rights have taken place under the guise of "family Values" legislation.

The Christian Coalition is a driving force behind this movement, however they are not the only party responsible for these actions. Many aspects of Family Values Legislation comes from dual-income families and single-parent families from all social strata. These families often don't have the time to protect thier children from the basic harshness of this modern world therefore, they turn to the govenment to protect their children from anything they deem harmful.

The rise of Family Values Legislation took a rise in the latter years of the Regan Administration when the downturn in the economy made it nessecary for many at-home-parents to return to the workforce in order to keep the family's "head above water". This left children in the care of babysitters, or (more often) the television, or some other form of media. Without direct parental supervision children often became exposed to material that some parents deemed unacceptible. This sparked lawsuits, many of which were won by the offended parties, setting legal precedent and paving the way for lawmakers to enact more restrictive legislation.

However, there is many a theory about how placing "what is decent" and "acceptible" into the hands of the government takes away from true family values, it allows a parent to be less involved in the lives of their children. The government, in this case, becoming an "enabler" in the distancing between parent and child. Parents (should be/are) the first role-models a child has. There is a great deal of "value" in that relationship, and it's truly one that the government isn't looking at right now.

"I used to believe in family values
until I found out what they meant by it."

-- N. L. McCurdy

A political buzzword for the defense of the 'traditional' (nuclear) family against such perceived evils as human rights for queer folks, family planning, and the like.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.