Their statement is correct, but that is hardly a global campaign of this sort is it? I mean I read that statement as basically saying that the arguments in favor of the change to our system of laws are anthropologically flawed.
I don't see that as taking a stand on the matter globally. I certainly don't see them saying that if the Hopi don't allow same-sex marriage that they are in violation of the human rights of the members of their society.
Of course as far as different family structures, these include polygamous families, and other things like the Greek model (heterosexual, monogamous marriage with heavily circumscribed homosexual relationships filling important social roles in parallel). Same sex marriage could be part of it but it doesn't have to be. They aren't saying "you must recognize SSM" just that it is misguided to pass a constitutional amendment against if that's the fear.
It could even include the wonderfully complex polygamy pattern portrayed in the Mahabharata, where the princess Drupadi has five husbands, each of which had at least one other wife.
I am not sure of your point that it doesn't count because it is discussing the US. Anthropology applies just as much on a street corner in Delaware as it does in the middle of the Amazon. But ok, here's some more, and two of them are global. Perhaps I am researching the wrong sort of anthropologists.
Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights
Committee for Human Rights
American Anthropological Association
...As a professional organization of anthropologists, the AAA has long been, and should continue to be, concerned whenever human difference is made the basis for a denial of basic human rights...
American Anthropological Association Statement on Laws and Policies Discriminating against Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Persons
...the American Anthropological Association will henceforth sign no contracts for any of its annual meetings in any state or local municipality which has such laws or policies discriminating against lesbian, gay or bisexual persons...
AAA letter to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
...we wish to express our grave concern for the status of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in the ongoing effort to have it approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations...
I wasn't saying that the AAA couldn't issue specific lines protecting cultural diversity or addressing a specific policy in a specific time.
What I said is that they would not get involved in a global campaign of this sort. The question is particularity and whether one is actually understanding the culture affected.
One can have opinions of whether recognition of gay marriage is a good thing or not for the US, or whether discrimination against gays and lesbians are a problem in the US without making these into issues which homogenize the world.
Also it occurs to me, the question of human rights is kind of a funny one to bring into anthropology since on one hand ethnocentricity is inescapable, and on the other, there just is no solid epistemology to justify these on a cross-cultural basis. I can't help but think this is either somewhat overreaching or perhaps more likely a miscommunication.
For example, I could see an argument that human rights and human rights violations don't necessarily take a specific form, but rather are emergent properties of cultural systems. Perhaps there is a general right to dignity and not to be singled out for particularly harsh punishments by law, beyond that.... Can you really tell the !Kung tribesman that he has a right to marry a woman who has the same name as his sister? can you really tell the hunter-gatherer in the jungle that they must respect property rights of their co-tribesman? Can you tell the eskimo that he has the right to free speech and that taboos regarding speech should be removed? Can you tell the Sambian boy that he has a right not to be beat or forced into fellatio in coming of age ceremonies? Can you tell the Hopis they may not beat their children when initiating them into the religious community of the tribe?
One basic human right that I think most anthropologists would agree with is that of collective self-determination. I think the group to some extent has to define these issues for themselves. Hence the rights of "indigenous" peoples (although there is no consensus as to whether "indigenous" is any more than a political label--- the general trend in the articles I have read is to treat "indigenous" as only meaningful in political discussions).
I don't see that as taking a stand on the matter globally. I certainly don't see them saying that if the Hopi don't allow same-sex marriage that they are in violation of the human rights of the members of their society.
Of course as far as different family structures, these include polygamous families, and other things like the Greek model (heterosexual, monogamous marriage with heavily circumscribed homosexual relationships filling important social roles in parallel). Same sex marriage could be part of it but it doesn't have to be. They aren't saying "you must recognize SSM" just that it is misguided to pass a constitutional amendment against if that's the fear.
It could even include the wonderfully complex polygamy pattern portrayed in the Mahabharata, where the princess Drupadi has five husbands, each of which had at least one other wife.