Foucault and Gay Marriage

In the chapter "Domain", Foucault identifies specific measures of control that began in the eighteenth century. One such device is "a socialization of procreative behavior... a political socialization achieved through the 'responsibilization' of couples" (105). This brought to mind the "Marriage Protection Act" movement. Take this quote from the Senate Floor:

Protection of Marriage Amendment
Statement by
U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla)

"according to Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, codirector of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers...marriage has many benefits. She is speaking clinically when she gives these evaluations.

It can be a source of 'economic, educational, and social advantage for most children. Children from intact families are far less likely to be poor or to experience persistent economic insecurity. Estimates suggest that children experience a 70-percent drop in their household income in the immediate aftermath of divorce and, unless there is a remarriage, the income is still 40-45 percent lower 6 years later than for children from intact families.'"

All of the strategies of sexual control that Foucault identifies are present. Sexual discourse has been removed from the level of morality, but not rendered powerless. "Normal" marriage becomes a socially beneficial act with far-reaching economic implications. The Senator assures us that the researcher he quotes speaks 'clinically'. He implies that medical knowledge holds more objective sway that political rhetoric , even while using it for purely political ends.

I'm assuming that the Marriage Protection Act is protecting Marriage the Institution from including homosexuals? Given the political climate and the fact that it's quoted re Foucault I'm assuming as much, though the selected quote focuses more on the problems of divorce than of sexual identity.

Whether the report concerns gay marriage is perhaps secondary to the fact that it reinscribes marriage as the normative adult identity/goal with a bit of specious logic. If parents separate, of course there will be a drop in income--2 incomes becomes one income, or a previously unemployed homemaker is forced to re-enter the workforce at what will likely be an entry level (low-paying) position. If the parents have joint custody, technically the child still receives the benefits of both the incomes, even if the official tax returns indicate otherwise--if I'm way off in these assumptions let me know.

To connect this back to Foucault, there is no objective reason why marriage is at all relevant to the above scenario--two adults who want to raise a child can do so, pool their incomes, pool their time resources, and provide quality education to nurture a happy healthy child. Inhofe describes an upbringing that can happen irregardless of marriage. Additionally, positing the above account as a counter-argument to proponents of gay marriage, which I'm assuming it is, is equally baseless: who says a loving homosexual couple cannot provide the preceding environment for a child?

Obviously the quoted material does not discuss the perceived benefit of having parents of opposite sexes/genders, but even if it did, it assumes marriage to be essential to raise healthy kids when it is more of a cultural rubber stamp, a mark of inclusion. Critiquing it as such is still relevant re gay marriage--though there are extremely compelling narratives of discrimination and acceptance into the status quo that make gay marriage a necessary and important goal, on a theoretical level marriage is only a cultural superstructure built around/on top of the sex act. Most of the utility now ascribed to marriage is in no way reducible to sex; it is defended with both eyes on the progeny. By such criteria, its essentiality is especially precarious.

This discussion of marriage raises questions/interests I had in Foucault's remarks on Western traditions of family. He discusses the deployment of alliance and that of sexuality in the form of the family; family, a major factor of sexualization, anchors sexuality and provides it with a permanent support (108).
One of my friends argues a position wary of gay marriage: the effort to legalize gay marriage pushes committed homosexual relationships under the rubric of the family--a gay couple, instead of aspiring to form its own sort of family or raising kids in a form that could be outside of the normalized relationship of marriage, aspires to create the typical problematic familial relationships (the patriarchal family perpetuating an authoritarian society, children grown into the Oedipal model, etc.). He claims that, in gay marriage, a homosexual couple aspires to be a marketable heterosexual one, instead of developing values that could contradict those problematic in the traditional nuclear family. (Of course, a counter argument could say that, by admitting homosexuality into the institution of marriage, our problematic concept of family could alter.)
In a society in which the only relations recognized are marriage and family, where can a homosexual relationship also be validated? Perhaps it's not a matter of integrating homosexual relations into pre-existing cultures, but of imagining new cultural forms.
Two questions: has Foucault written specifically on homosexual relationships in Western culture, and has he written elsewhere about family?

The issue of ‘marriage as normalized’ strikes me as quite exemplary of the sort of diffused alternative conception of power that Foucault favors. I might be opening a can of worms with regard to notions of marriage, however, it seems that everything implicated in this institutionalized practice of lifestyle is indicative of the omni-presence of a Foucaultian power to formulate and fix life practice in favor of a status quo capitalism. Foucault might posit the ‘top-down-power’ analysis of elite repression of gay marriage, for example, as an overly simplistic reading of power over sexuality. Looking into marriage as a capital-implicated institution allows us to view the many tendrils of power: it manages and rules less through the commands of some singular powerful class, and more from within the various strata of all that is fixed in marriage practice.

For example, many would argue that patriarchy is an inherent outcome of the heteronormativity of marriage. The institution of a dual-person household fixes all its connoted practices in a way that otherizes and discredits any other lifestyle. Meanwhile, power relationships within the normalized space become further neutralized. Thus it may be too simple to say that conservative senators wish to keep homosexuality out of the American practice of marriage – this leaves to space for the power within the institutions at play to emerge in ways that Foucault would advocate.