Thanks to Dana Rudolph for pointing out this article on Obama's continued funding of marriage promotion. The article, by Amy DePaul, quotes with no attribution from a letter I wrote on behalf of several opponents of continued funding. My blog about the letter, with a link to it, is here. Obama's 2010 budget eliminates abstinence-only sex education, but there is a huge overlap between the groups receiving that funding and those getting marriage promotion funds. Considering the GAO report documenting poor oversight of the use of marriage promotion funds, there's reason to fear misdirection of those funds.
If Obama won't eliminate these funds it will be up to Congress to act, especially when TANF comes up for reauthorization next year. Expect the feminist group Legal Momentum to play a big role (good contact there: Tim Casey). Also, the Alternatives to Marriage Project will weigh in as much as they can. Support these groups and urge them to do as much as they can. But it's equally important to make sure that LGBT groups weigh in. They may like marriage, but they can't like the well-documented anti-gay bias of these efforts. I fear that many LGBT groups won't want to appear anti-marriage. Forget that. I don't want federal funding to promote same-sex marriage anymore than I want it for different-sex marriage. I think the LBGT groups have a real role to play here, if they will just step up and be heard.