Boston man sues over gay marriage question on bar exam

[deadparrot]

Source: Boston Globe

BOSTON --A man who claims he failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer a question about gay marriage has filed a federal lawsuit, saying the test violated his rights and that his religious beliefs were targeted.

Stephen Dunne, 30, of Boston, is seeking $9.75 million in the suit against the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He was denied a license to practice law in May after scoring 268.866 on the exam, just shy of the 270 passing grade.

Dunne, who is representing himself in the case, refused to answer an exam question addressing the rights of two married lesbians, their children and their property, and claims in the suit that it cost him a passing score.

In the suit, Dunne called the question "morally repugnant and patently offensive," and said he refused to answer it because he believed it legitimized same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, which is contrary to his moral beliefs.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/07/06/boston_man_sues_over_gay_marriage_question_on_bar_exam/?p1=MEWell_Pos1

[asthmaticeog]

1. Wait...

He failed because he refused to answer one question?

Or did he fail because he was on the cusp of failing and leaving that one blank is what put him over?

[Hots4Hillary]

10. Is there a right or wrong answer on that?

I think he'd have a better case if he'd answered it then claimed his answer was what failed him.

[Throwing Stones]

17. like most make or break" exam scoring -

On the Passachusetts Bar Exam, you do not lose points for answers left blank, but only earn points for questions answered correctly. In the case of the essay questions, applicants are given a "menu" in each of the two sessions (morning and afternoon). I forget the number of questions, but it's somewhere around 4 to 7 that and applicant has to provide a short (1 to 2 bluebook pages at most) to 3 of the questions/hypotheticals in each session. So, this clown couldn't answer either 3 or 5 up to 3 or 7 questions (during one of the sessions) about Mass. law with enough coherency to tip his already pathetic score above passing? Probably a good thing he failed.

[msongs]

2. its the law, idiot - render unto caesar what is caesar's nt

[theoldman]

3. Tough shit buddy. Retake the test.

[nini]

4. Well, the law doesn't cover his morals.. it covers the LAW

I doubt he wins this and he sounds like he's an idiot - what does answering a question have to do whether you agree with what the people involved are doing with their lives.

Would he be so offended to answer a question about murder, rape, incest etc... THOSE are the morally repugnant issues.

[SoxFan]

5. Attention-seeking putz

When I took the bar in 2001, I seem to recall several question on the multistate portion dealing with murder, embezzlement, and all sorts of foul deeds. All morally repugnant, I might add.

There are lots of problems with the existing bar exam system, but this guy is nothing more than a bozo who is more interested in a gig on Fox or talk radio than with practicing law.

[LiberalFighter]

8. He must believe that murder, embezzlement, and other foul deeds

are acceptable to his morality.

[depakid]

13. It was an essay question

involving issue spotting and analysis- simply spouting "correct" answers won't get you many points.

Seems to me this guy's attitude reflects poor character and shows contempt for the Commonwealth's law. The Board of Examiners should think long & hard about allowing this applicant to sit for the Bar exam again...

Here's the question, btw:

4. Mary and Jane, both attorneys, were married two years ago in Massachusetts. The day before their marriage, Mary and Jane each fully disclosed their assets to the other and signed an antenuptial agreement (the “Agreement”) in which each of them agreed that if they were ever divorced (i) they would divide any joint marital property evenly, (ii) they would not seek or accept any property that the other brought into the marriage, and (iii) they would not seek or accept child support or alimony from the other.

The Agreement was drafted and reviewed by an attorney representing Jane. Mary did not hire an attorney to review the Agreement as she “trusted Jane.”

At the time of the marriage Jane had a two year old adopted child, Philip, and Mary was three months pregnant. When Mary gave birth in Boston six months later to Charles, Mary and Jane were listed on his birth certificate as his parents. Mary has treated and referred to Philip as her son, although she did not adopt him. Mary, Jane, Philip and Charles lived in a house in Boston owned by both Mary and Jane. The down payment for this house came only from Mary.

Jane was the sole supporter of the family, while Mary stayed at home taking care of Philip and Charles. Mary had no savings, while Jane had over a million dollars in savings from an inheritance that she received when her mother died three years ago.

Yesterday Jane got drunk and hit 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 Philip, Charles, and Lisa.

What are the rights of Mary and Jane?

http://www.mass.gov/bbe/essayquestionsfeb2007.pdf

[Jackpine Radical]

28. The lesbian aspect of the question seems to be a red herring.

It's really a question about marital property rights & stuff like that. He could have answered the question about "Mary & Joseph" had he wanted, and there wold have been few if any substantive differences.

All that regardless, a state has the right to expect its lawyers to be conversant with the law, even when that law is repugnant to the lawyer. That's what the test is for.

And I'm not a lawyer, BTW.

[MadMaddie]

29. I am not a lawyer either but I think you are right about the red herring..

If the guy couldn't figure that out....kinda says something about him.

Obviously this question was not the only question he missed....

[Igel]

32. Mostly, I think.

But I think most states don't allow child support to be waived for a kid if the kid is born in wedlock--the father's on the hook, regardless, and the mother cannot waive the kid's rights to support. However, it's the mother who receives child support on behalf of her kid.

Since one child came into the marriage and wasn't adopted, that kid's a non-issue. But the child born in the marriage is very much an issue.

But if the father is a woman, I don't know what the law could possibly say, or if that's even been worked out in Massachussetts.

Otherwise I don't think the fact that two women were involved matters.

[w4rma]

30. Exactly. This guy shows contempt for the law. Tough luck, jerk. Retake it. (nt)

[Rockholm]

6. What a ......... LOSER.

Too friggin' bad. It was a test. Next time I take a test, will will just refuse on moral grounds any questions that offend my brain.

[baldguy]

7. Just because he's a bigot doesn't mean he won't have to know how the law works.

But then idiots tend to be bigots.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Throwing Stones]

14. any DU lawyers will probably get a laugh out of the "complaint"

http://www.goodasyou.org/gaybarguy.pdf

the first twenty pages are tough reading, especially for non-law-nerds, but the rest of it is full of beautiful non-sequitars.

For the law-nerds out there, this is the most hi-larious things I've read in a while. He wastes almost twenty pages "arguing" about subject matter jurisdiction and against every fucking obscure abstention doctrine yet he totally forgets to even allege in-personam jurisdiction. And that's just the beginning of this douchebag's attempt to show that he "learned" every bizarro exception that made certain tools in your class insufferable - not so much because they had memorized some arcane caselaw, but because it would usually turn out that they were also misinterpreting it -

Enjoy, my fellow sufferers through law school. Having learned how to call this bullshit almost makes the three years worthwhile.

[depakid]

18. What a sorry piece of work!

Simply having to read through and respond to that is grounds for Rule 11 sanctions.

:rofl:

[Throwing Stones]

25. I'd do it pro bono for the state - as long as I had final editorial say /

just think how many juicy bombs you could throw at the four horsemen: ScaThomasRobertAlia(and fucking Kennedy).

[Worst Username Ever]

21. Law Review he ain't.

How not to write. Thanks.

[Throwing Stones]

26. How did this fucker pass first year legal writing?

oh, that's right, his check for second year tuition cleared.

[kestrel91316]

11. Another faux-christian WHINER complaining about his religious

rights being violated because ALTERNATE points of view exist.

Go suck an egg, Mr. Dunne.

[depakid]

16. The irony is that if this fool had simply answered the question

and expressed his "views" using appropriate legal analysis, he'd gotten enough points to pass the exam!

More than that- a lot of what's in that question doesn't have anything to do with same sex marriage! The issues and respective right and remedies would apply to anyone.

Some people just can't buy a clue....

[SoxFan]

36. Absolutely right

The same-sex marriage angle is really a distractor thrown in to prey on the test-takers nerves. In this case, it worked like a charm. The gender and orientation of the parties really doesn't have a big impact on the underlying issues. It's a question about division of marital assets, grounds for divorce, the legal status of the children, etc.

[depakid]

37. Might be a little tort law thrown in there, too.

;-)

[xchrom]

12. dunne is a morally repugnant tapeworm.

[Throwing Stones]

15. The characters in the hypo are named Mary and Jane

I think the defendants were also trying to impose their marijuana agenda on test-takers.

Gay, Married, and High on Dope!

ahhhhhh!

[madaboutharry]

19. This guy doesn't stand a chance

One of the essay questions on my bar exam involved writing out an entire brief for the appeal of a conviction for drug trafficing. I can pretty much say that not one of the hundreds of people in the room thought that drug trafficing is a good thing to do, but our opinion was not the point. Demonstrating an understanding of the law by presenting a thoughtful and legally sound essay was the point.

I have always wondered whether this is a true story: When I was in law school, my Torts professor told us a story about someone who actually threw up on their blue book. The proctors put the essay in a plastic bag and sent it in to the bar examiners. They passed the person without reading it. :)

[billyoc]

20. LOL, did anyone notice the name of the PDF file?!

gaybarguy.pdf! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Now, *that's* justice!

BTW, I think I was married to Jane's sister. :evilgrin:

[pingzing58]

22. And he's representing himself. What an idiot. Failure / fracaso!

[Paulie]

23. HA! I was looking for that old saying

A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client, and found these gems:

On this very story: http://www.quizlaw.com/blog/whats_the_adage_about_a_lawyer.php

And in general: http://rentmark.blogspot.com/2007/01/lawyer-who-represents-himself-has-fool.html

[BushOut06]

24. Sounds like a perfect RW talk show candidate!

He'll fit right in with Boortz, Michael Savage, and the gang.

[madaboutharry]

27. This complaint has a shelf life of about 5 minutes.

He claims he was penalized for "failing to prescribe to the liberal philosophy of Secular Humanism" and that he was targeted for failure due to his religious beliefs. Oh brother.

[mitchum]

31. Is murder against his moral beliefs and did he refuse to answer any related questions?

[Forkboy]

33. "morally repugnant and patently offensive,"

If he's willing to answer it in the suit why not answer the fucking question in the first place?

Are these people being bred in petri dishes somewhere?

[Strathos]

34. FUCK HIM we don't need bigots practicing law

Does he even have a chance of winning the suit? I mean, this is a strange time and with the SCOTUS in Bush's pocket, you never know.

[dkofos]

35. If you have problems with equal treatment under the law

you sure don't need to become a lawyer.