Moron fails the Bar exam because of the gays

From the Boston Herald:

Quote:

A Boston man who failed the Massachusetts bar exam has filed a federal lawsuit claiming his refusal to answer a test question - related to gay marriage - caused him to flunk the test.

Stephen Dunne, 30, is suing the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, claiming the “inappropriate” test question violated his religious convictions and his First Amendment rights. Answering the question, Dunne claims, would imply he endorsed gay marriage and parenting.

The suit also challenges the constitutionality of the 2003 SJC ruling that made Massachusetts the nation’s first state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Dunne, who describes himself as a Christian and a Democrat, is seeking $9.75 million in damages and wants a jury to prohibit the Board of Bar Examiners from considering the question in his passage of the exam and to order it removed from all future exams.

Aaand here's the offending question:

Quote:

“Yesterday, Jane got drunk and hit (her spouse) Mary with a baseball bat, breaking Mary’s leg, when she learned that Mary was having an affair with Lisa,” the bar exam question stated. “As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane in order to live in her house with Philip, Charles and Lisa. What are the rights of Mary and Jane?”

Somehow, if this guy thinks he's going to get anything -- let alone $9.75 million -- out of this, I think it's pretty safe to say that he didn't flunk the Bar exam solely because of this question.

Thoughts? Opinions? Should such a "socially sensitive" question like this be allowed on the Bar exam? Does it matter, and why?

Hahaha, what are the rights of Mary and Jane.

This dude doesn't have a case. For shit. That question doesn't imply he endorses anything. I think this dude didn't pass the bar exam and is now trying anything he can to get around it and get paid.

I know nothing of the bar exam, but would refusing to answer one question really cause him to fail? If he was on the verge and then missed this question then he's just an idiot. If he wasn't even close to passing then he's an idiot. If he got all the other answers right (or at least enough to pass) and refused to answer this question, causing him to fail, he's an idiot.

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

The article said he was really close to passing. 268.866 and needed a 270 to pass. If he had a half-assed answer on this question he probably would have passed. (Isn't really the issue, though.)

The case won't succeed. If they had asked him a question on the 2nd Amendment and he was against the NRA, would he have similarly not answered the question? Knowing the law isn't the same as endorsing the law.

There is no 1st Amendment violation as his speech was not impeded, nor was his own ability to practice the religion of his choosing.

Quote:

"Lawyers have to answer questions about legal principles they disagree with all the time, and that doesn’t mean we’re endorsing them,” said Dacey, a director of Goulston & Storrs’ litigation group. “You might be somebody who is morally opposed to divorce, but have to interpret the divorce laws of the commonwealth to answer a question about who property is passed to."

I wouldn't hire this guy who failed the bar as my lawyer, that's for sure (if he ever passes the bar). If you can't fairly evaluate and opposing position, how can you ever represent your client well?

What's more is that the question is about domestic issues, not (specifically) gay rights. If Jane had been a man, the nature of the question would not have changed whatsoever. Refusing to answer it based solely on its inclusion of lesbians is a crock.

Isn't the answer a little fuzzy? I mean, individual states have their own laws about what rights a married gay couple would have, if they allow marriage in the first place

Why should it be fuzzy? The question presupposes that marriage has been granted legally. The answer would be the same if it were Dick and Sheryl rather than Lisa and Mary. As someone who is going to practice law, this should be obvious.

Originally Posted by ElectricSheep

The question presupposes that marriage has been granted legally.

There is still a seperation of church and state, which could be troublesome given that its a legal question that offended his religious sensibilities. He may actually have a case if he can prove that he was religiously stigmatized by the offending article.

The question we should all be asking is if we want this person working in a law office.

The mere presence of homosexuals -- without an air of disapproval -- is what he finds "offensive," which is completely ridiculous. If the question had involved homosexuals insulting Christianity in some way, then that would serve as grounds for offense.

Originally Posted by Luminaire

The mere presence of homosexuals -- without an air of disapproval -- is what he finds "offensive," which is completely ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than you forcing someone else to conform to your own ideals, which is exactly what this guy is complaining about, like it or not.

I agree with him. I mean, it's a good thing that in the past lawyers have never had to put aside their moral preferences for some vague higher ideal of "justice and representation for all." Otherwise, you could have lawyers helping murderers prepare their defence cases and other such things!

Originally Posted by Zergrinch

Isn't the answer a little fuzzy? I mean, individual states have their own laws about what rights a married gay couple would have, if they allow marriage in the first place

Not fuzzy at all. He was sitting the Massachusetts bar exam for a license in that specific state.

It actually is a very valid question. If he can't determine the rights of a person, he has no business practicing law in that state.

Originally Posted by LeHah

There is still a seperation of church and state, which could be troublesome given that its a legal question that offended his religious sensibilities. He may actually have a case if he can prove that he was religiously stigmatized by the offending article.

The First Amendment does not give you a right to not be offended by the religious acts of others and the question doesn't limiting his ability to practice his religion in any way he sees fit. The question is not much different to a lawyer than asking what 2+2 equals (not as black and white). The mere fact that they have rights is not state-sponsored religious persecution (no matter what he believes) nor is the fact that the bar asks him to state what those rights are.

It is similar to a white supremacist sitting the bar saying that it is against his religion if he is asked on the bar exam about the rights of a black man.

Originally Posted by the index page

Moron fails the Bar exam...
How Unfortunate

I had a laugh.

Anyway, unfortunate, a lawyer has every right to refuse to represent a case if he feels that he cannot defend the murderer (for instance). In fact he has a moral imperative to; it's not worse for a man to have to shop for another lawyer than it is for the lawyer he got to give a defense substandard of his abilities. That actually can be grounds for retrial and all that.

Anyway this asshole sounds like the broad who eventually sued University of Michigan - and won - because she was put on a wait list to get in. She apparently felt that affirmative action worked against her. Assholes are everywhere, what can I say?

Maybe Mary is a man. There have been weirder names for men.

Well, the question called both parties "she".

Originally Posted by a lurker

it's worse for a man to have to shop for another lawyer than it is for the lawyer he got to give a defense substandard of his abilities.

Except this guy may turn out to be the Donald Trump of lawyering. He just doesn't want to have anything to do with gays, meaning it's not a matter of aptitude, but personal opinion. I think he's in the wrong. Gay rights are in the law books in his state, so he needs to know them, or at least give the impression to whoever is testing him, that he knows them. After that, he can go back to handing custody over to moms, or whatever it is he wants to do.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

The First Amendment does not give you a right to not be offended by the religious acts of others and the question doesn't limiting his ability to practice his religion in any way he sees fit.

The First Amendment doesn't supercede inalienable rights. Just because you or I disagree with this person doesn't mean he's wrong and just because he comes off as a homophobic dick, doesn't make him automatically wrong.

The fact of the matter is - we wouldn't have lawyers at all if its wasn't for the fact that people disagree on things. Thats as common as grass in this day and age - and why should he have to answer a question that is against his personal beliefs? We don't ask the Amish to climb into ambulances for that very same reason.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

The question is not much different to a lawyer than asking what 2+2 equals (not as black and white).

Its entirely different - because religions don't have a problem with mathmatics, while they do have a problem with homosexuality.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

The mere fact that they have rights is not state-sponsored religious persecution (no matter what he believes) nor is the fact that the bar asks him to state what those rights are.

Thats not called into question. He's complaining about the QUESTION being on the TEST, not the fact that they have rights at all. Stop trying to villianize someone over a disagreement if you're not going to read the fucking article.

Originally Posted by LeHah

and why should he have to answer a question that is against his personal beliefs? We don't ask the Amish to climb into ambulances for that very same reason.

If someone wants to live according to their religion, that is their right within reason. But if they want to become a lawyer they have to know and demonstrate an understanding of the law. If that's incompatible with their religion, then it's their right to not be a lawyer.

Originally Posted by Arainach

But if they want to become a lawyer they have to know and demonstrate an understanding of the law.

He's questioning the moral values of a law test, not the social nuances of a group of people. He's never said anything about his dislike of gays - simply that the question was inappropriate to the test and his belief system.

Why is it all you people who scream for equal rights and tolerance are amongst the most ignorant and intolerant people of all?

Originally Posted by Arainach

If that's incompatible with their religion, then it's their right to not be a lawyer.

You obviously do not know what a "right" if if you're using it inappropriately in that sentence.