A recent conversation on another blog reminded me of the forces aligned against us in our fight to preserve marriage. Many of these forces are well entrenched in important sounding “objective” organizations. Since the 1960’s the ideological environment among scholars has stressed the need for scholarship to be “relevant” (read: politicized for a cause).
One does not have to scratch far below the surface to debunk many professional organizations naked cheerleading for one cause or another. This mutual support for favored causes (like same-sex “marriage”) usually takes the form of supportive sounding but intellectual vapid “statements”.
These statements are usually issued by a small group running the organization. They do not reflect nor are intended to reflect the views of all the scholars in a particular debate, nor the current consensus of the field on a given subject.
A case study of one such statement.
On February 24, 2004, President Bush called for a national marriage amendment. His comments included the following observations.

“After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity….” ….“Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.”

The day after the American Anthropological Association released the following statement in response to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a “threat to civilization”.

“The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.”

(italicized emphasis mine)This statement was issued by Executive Board of the Association. Not a vote of all members.Notice the precision of the wording, provide no support means only that evidence is lacking, that is: the subject has yet to be studied. Also note: civilization or viable social orders is a rather loose term. This says nothing about what most societies recognize as marriage (now or in the past) nor what is best for society or children. It basically says “we anthropologists don’t think the earth will spin of its access if gays get “married”.
Most importantly, statements by scholarly association like this don’t reflect scientific or academic consensus on a subject. That level of consensus is something generated in a field after years of study & disagreement. Yet these overtly politicized and (as demonstrated) horribly thin statements get mistaken by the general public as a synthesis of the scholarship to date. (A misrepresentation I’m afraid these organizations promote)
This article by Peter Wood, a professor of anthropology at Boston University and provost elect at King's College, is a response to that very statement issued by the AAA.
It is a very worthwhile read discussing how Kinship Study is the backbone of anthropology. It includes this….

“Ideologically, I suppose this is what one has come to expect from the AAA: a reflexive affirmation of leftist pieties. But still, it is surprising to see a professional organization propound such a breathless lie. As an AAA member for some 25 years, I am embarrassed.” “In fact, some 150 years of systematic inquiry by anthropologists leaves little doubt that heterosexual marriage is found in nearly every human society and almost always as a pivotal institution. Homosexual marriage outside contemporary Western societies is exceedingly rare and never the basis of "viable social order."”

If your still not convinced that organizations like the AAA are overtly politicized and are willing to use there (supposed) esteem & “objectivity” by issuing statements outside their area of authentic expertise then maybe you should go to their web site itself and see if these are the result of a “scientific consensus”.

Statements issued by the American Anthropological Association (include)
Statement Opposed to US Military Action Against Iran

Statement Against Coca-Cola
Statement on Iraq and torture
Statement on the Cuban Trade Embargo
Statement on Interventions to Prevent HIV Risk Behaviors
Statement on Interdiction of Haitian Refugees
Statement on Violence against Women Act
Statement in supports of U. Michigan in S.C. case for affirmative action policies


(Source Link)