homosexual as homo sacer?

Edelmen writes that "queerness can never define an identity; it can only disturb one" (17). In our culture, queerness does not warrant the same amount of respect as heterosexuality. Gay sex is not procreation so it can only crudely be referred to as "fucking." Queerness defies the heteronormativity that is supposed to define our future. The homosexual has strayed somewhere along the road to normalization. With all of the the associations to the death drive, I started thinking about whether the homosexual could be understood as a homo sacer.
The homo sacer lives in a state of exception. He can be killed yet his murder will not be not punished. The homo sacer has been abandoned by the law. I would argue that so has the homosexual. The political order treats the homosexual as an exception. The homosexual is not considered deserving of the right to marry and raise children. Many people view homosexuals as less human that heterosexuals. Gary Bauer said that "those who practice homosexuality embrace a culture of death" (39). While bias crimes against gay people are categorized as hate crimes and vehemently shunned by the government, there is a large number of people who would praise the criminal. Even if the political order punishes the murderers of homosexuals, its social decisions speak to the contrary. By creating certain rules for homosexuals, the government is producing an exception and thus treating queerness as less worthy. The loss of a homosexual is not as grave because he/she will not produce offspring. The homosexual's assumed embrace of the death drive places him in the role of the homo sacer.

While homosexuals might sometimes be homo sacralized - and this is obviously up for various kinds of debate - I think it's important to distinguish, as morefuntocompute did in his 'gay vs. queer' post, 'homosexuality' as a sexual identity from 'queerness' or 'sinthomosexuality' as a disruptive force. For Edelman, sinthomosexuals need not be gay, male, or even human (e.g., birds or Scar from The Lion King fit the bill) to do the kind of anti-futuristic, anti-semic, jouissancy work that they do - so is what you're asking whether homosexuals can be homosacralized, whether sinthomosexuals (including birds) can be homo sacralized, or whether homosexuals qua sinthomosexuals can be homo sacralized? Or whether the homo sacralization of homosexuals can be sourced to some anxiety about sinthsomosexuals?

--Guattari Hero

Given Guattari Hero's key reminder about the function of 'queerness' in this text, it seems that there is something useful, though perhaps dangerous, in the connection between homo sacer and the rhetorical space of queerness. What strikes as most resonating is the ways in which those such as Edelman - radical queer theorists, activists, etc. - have become even further marginalized in political and social treatment both by The System (dundunduuun) and the layers of the mainstream queer community. Where hundreds of thousands of dollards are spent each year to fund lobby and activism around the acquisition of civil rights for the LGBT community, there are those who feel that the passage of pro-gay marriage law would seal the deal for the heteronormative patriarchal nuclear family fixed as ultimately 'natural' and essential. This political resistance meets criticism within the queer community, and thus the treatment is somehow similar to Agamben's Muselman; marginalization within the legally marginal.

I don't know if I would draw such an explicit parallel between Edelman's linguistic-politico topology of queerness and Agamben's homo sacer, but I think you've got a good point in that both represent a category of exception that allows for violence outside of regulatory systems. Perhaps this would be a good jumping off point for an analysis of the state of exception as a tool for systems of power.