Good post

Pandagon hits it again. The comments are good. At first the argument that conservatives don't consider poor families to fall under the "family values" umbrella seems mean and petty.
The important thing to consider is how the term "family values" functions semantically. Most people err in understanding the definition of it, because they break it into two words and assume the phrase means "valuing families". In order to understand what a word or phrase means, you have to pay attention to how it is used, what its context is. The phrase "family values" gets hauled out everytime something or someone threatens patriarchal authority, so it is better understood as meaning "valuing patriarchal authority". A good working example of this is how families with gay parents are denied equal legal protection under the auspice of "family values". Obviously, families are not being valued, since actual families are suffering. However, denying equal rights to gays does uphold the traditional straight male authority.
Poor families are often, in reality and even more so in stereotype, run by women. This is without question a violation of "family values". If women can raise children well by themselves, it is an insult to patriarchal values and therefore every effort needs to be expended to keep that from happening. Individual women and children will get trampled, but that is unavoidable. Above all, the patriarchal order needs protection.