I agree with your last statement 100%. Why in the world would it be necessary to disrupt the nuclear family to have greater community and cultural bonds?
Some of the founders of BLM are self-proclaimed Marxists. I don't think it is much of a stretch to say there is some sort of a connection between Marxism and being anti-family.
You are misplacing the disruption on the nuclear family, when it is actually saying to disrupt the requirement on nuclear families.
This refers to ways our society benefits 2-parent households and makes things harder for single parents. They suggest addressing this by providing more support and community for each other, not by tearing down nuclear families.
As an analogy, installing wheelchair ramps doesn't prevent people from climbing stairs, it just makes building more accessible.
It isn't society making it easier for two parents to raise a child vs one parent. It's having double the number of people raising that child.
I see no way to read that as BLM supports the nuclear family. So the largest social justice movement in the US doesn't support two parent families. That seems pretty significant
It doesn't seem that disruptive to me, but trying to portray it as a Marxist anti-family statement is still a stretch. It appears to advocate "disruption" of the nuclear family model through greater community involvement rather than "disruption" through dismantling it. It's still not an anti nuclear-family statement per se, it's just against having the nuclear family unit being the only relevant influence in societal upbringing.
Which in a rural white community would literally be a Sunday church sermon.
Some of the founders of BLM are self-proclaimed Marxists. I don't think it is much of a stretch to say there is some sort of a connection between Marxism and being anti-family.