Bar-Exam Flunker Quits Suit Over Gay-Wed Question

[WillyT]

<snip>

Boston man has asked a federal court to dismiss his lawsuit in which he claimed that his refusal to answer a Massachusetts bar exam question related to gay marriage caused him to fail the test. Stephen Dunne, 30, maintained that answering the essay question would have violated his Irish Catholic beliefs and First Amendment rights, because it would imply his support of gay marriage and parenting.

Filed in June against the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, his lawsuit sought to prohibit the question from being used to compute his exam score and to have the question removed from future exams. The New England School of Law grad took the bar exam in February, scoring a 268.866 when a score of 270 was needed to pass.

In court documents, Dunne said he wanted to drop his suit because the July bar exam didn’t include what he called the “patently offensive and morally repugnant” gay marriage question. He characterized that as a “corrective action” by the board.

But in court documents filed yesterday, the board’s attorney said the board has “not agreed to limit the content” of any future bar exams. The board’s decision not to include the same question on the July exam “merely reflects their standard practice of not repeating questions on successive bar examinations,” the court filing said. The exam question read: “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. As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane in order to live in her house with (children) Philip (and) Charles and Lisa. What are the rights of Mary and Jane?”

The board maintains that the question was a legitimate one regarding current Massachusetts law.

Dunne’s suit also challenged the constitutionality of the SJC’s 2003 ruling under which Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Dunne’s Web site, www.christianlawsuit.com, where he outlined his case and solicited funds for his legal defense, remained active yesterday. He could not be reached for comment.

<snip>

Link: http://pageoneq.com/rssfeedstuff/index.php?id=14378

Yeah... this is just the type of guy we need practicing law.

:wtf:

[Nikki Stone1]

1. His Irish Catholic beliefs ? (So Italian Catholic, Polish Catholic, etc. are different?)

Other than that silly comment, the whole damned thing is sad, offensive, and undermines the law.

Can he take the bar again?

[rocktivity]

6. Sure. But I don't think he should be allowed to (in Massachusetts, at least)

since he's demonstrated that he's not interested in doing what a lawyer is SUPPOSED to do.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Richard Steele]

7. Exactly. He's clearly indicated his belief that a class of people shouldn't have rights.

And he seemed to be arguing that his prejudice should
somehow give him special rights that others don't have.

Screw him- I hope he never becomes an attorney. He's not fit.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Back in the earlier days of Roman Catholic religion

there were different beliefs in different countries.

[mcscajun]

2. No, we definitely do not need him at the bar. I couldn't resist visiting his site.

Here's an excerpt where he incorrectly assumed intent by the "Defendants" and upon which assumption he would drop his suit:

"2. Defendants removal of the question is assurance that all future examinees taking the Massachusetts Bar Examination will not be forced to accept, support or promote a liberal ideology on a professional licensing examination. There is another forum for that contemporary social issue and the Massachusetts Bar Examination is not an appropriate forum for that debate, especially considering the fact that Defendants have ignored the imprimatur of the people and the democratic process in enacting and legalizing gay marriage in the State of Massachusetts."

[rocktivity]

3. I'm delighted that he flunked the bar exam

Because he lacks the most important qualification a lawyer needs: an interest in ensuring that the rule of law--NOT anything else, including religion--ALWAYS prevails.

:headbang:
rocknation

[fedupfisherman]

4. He should be legally prohibited from becoming a lawyer

It scares me that he can legally come a lawyer

[Mz Pip]

5. THat's what law is all about

- adversarial actions or preventing adversarial actions. If numb nuts didn't get that the laws are not all about him and his beliefs then he has no bsuiness being a lawyer.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[tanyev]

8. There are plenty of RW fundie think tanks that will be happy to give him a job.

Probably pays more than lawyering anyway.

[Ms. Toad]

10. Right, and when there is a capital punishment question

on the bar exam, I get to refuse to answer it because I find capital punishment morally repugnant.

Wrong. The entire point of the essay portion of the bar exam is to demonstrate your ability to identify legal issues and to make arguments on both sides of an issue. You identify the issues (one of which, on behalf of the accused batterer, could be a challenge that the couple was not really married because the marriage statute was illegal), and argue both sides of the issue (that's why they asked about each of their rights - not just the rights of of the victim). You can't be an effective lawyer, if you can't identify the legal issues involved which might both help and hurt your client and cannot anticipate (and articulate) the arguments the other side is likely to make.

Once he is in practice, he can refuse to take cases which he finds morally repugnant - just as I decline jobs which require me to participate in the imposition or continuation of the death penalty (which cuts out most judicial/judicial clerk jobs, other than domestic relations or bankruptcy).

Aside from my questions as to the effectiveness of his legal education, I am personally delighted that he will be delayed in his pursuit of a license to practice law.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. For being stupid enough to even bring such a suit

the man should never, ever be allowed to pass the bar.

His personal concerns are moot. As an attorney he would be asked to work with the laws, whether he agrees with them or not. The question was pretty straight-forward. If he was so offended, he could have changed the names in his mind to make that tiny mind feel all better.

[dansolo]

16. He couldn't change the names

I assume there are different legal considerations when the couple is same-sex. I assume that was the whole point of the question.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. Yeah, I know. I was just being facetious. nt

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

12. His parents just blew 7 years & probably a quarter of a million

on this moran.

[xchrom]

13. ya know it's funny -- the lgbtq communities are going to create a whole

crew of folk in this country that won't serve us.

pharmacists

lawyers

ministers and priests

who next -- ambulance drivers?


i'd say the shoe maker -- but government drove those folk off shore.

the candle stick maker --same thing.

my baker loves me cause i spend good money on his bread -- and he's gay.

bunch a fuckin loonies.

[TahitiNut]

14. Is Jane a switch-hitter? What's her batting average?

:silly:

[BlooInBloo]

15. Just like pharmacists, if your mythological beliefs interfere with your job performance....

... you should look for a more mythology-friendly line of work.

[Blue_Tires]

17. idiot

never mind the fact that if he scored higher on the test, he could have skipped the gay couple question and still passed the test....but no--he has to be a martyr and sue like crazy...

i'm happy for the state of mass. that he didn't pass...it seems the only job he would ever get is with one of those 1-800-SUE-THE-BASTARDS type outfits