Bottoms v. Bottoms: The Lesbian Mother and the Judicial Perpetuation of Damaging Stereotypes

Not unexpectedly, homophobic attitudes pervade judicial decisions denying rights to homosexuals. It is, however, somewhat confounding to detect degrading stereotypes about lesbians and gay men in decisions that purport to advance lesbian and gay rights. By way of example, a recent Virginia Court of Appeals decision, Bottoms v. Bottoms, was one that civil libertarians and commentators had hailed as a victory for homosexuals.\u27 That Bottoms case, however, was paradoxical. Although in Bottoms, the lesbian mother emerged triumphant with her child, the court of appeals nevertheless promoted certain damaging, outmoded notions about homosexuals

Husband and Wife are One - Him: \u3cem\u3eBennis v. Michigan\u3c/em\u3e as the Resurrection of Coverture

Although the legal fictions of coverture and guilty property have been repudiated by statutes and the Court respectively, the Supreme Court implicitly resurrected and fused the coverture and guilty property myths in Bennis v. Michigan. In that decision, the Court approved the forfeiture of Ms. Bennis\u27 interest in a car in which her husband engaged in sexual activity with a prostitute. This Article explores that resurrected conglomerate in three parts. Part I is a concise review of the feudal doctrine of coverture and the disabilities it imposed on married women. Part II focuses almost entirely on the decision in Austin, in which the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment\u27s Excessive Fines Clause applies to in rem forfeiture proceedings. Part III begins with a summary of the Bennis decision and ends with an expose of Bennis as the resurrection and fusion of both the guilty property and coverture fictions