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.
The lunacy of Dunne’s position is obvious; because a lawyer disagrees with the law doesn’t exempt her from knowing the law. Dunne’s moral claim — that answering a factual question about a law implies agreement with the law — is similarly groundless.
This illustrates the sense of entitlement held by many fundamentalist Christians today. Consider the fundamentalist pharmacists and emergency room doctors who refuse to fulfill the duties of their job, but push for laws exempting them from the consequences of that decision; or the Christians who have objected to biology exams that ask questions about evolution.
No one can force Dunne to answer an exam question he prefers to leave blank. But being Christian shouldn’t exempt Dunne from having to pass the bar exam if he wants to practice law. Unfortunately, Dunne’s attitude — which can be summed up as “let’s make a special law exempting Christians from the ordinary consequences of not meeting requirements” — seems increasingly common among right-wing Christians.
UPDATE: Zuzu at Majikthise continues the mockery. As does Daddy, Papa and Me.
This is unbelievable. I can’t believe anyone would think this has merit! Talk about privilege to the nth degree!
It reminds me of the college students who have complained about reading works by people like Marx or others. Some schools have tried to give alternative assignments to these students, but to me that’s ridiculous.
You don’t get to just read everything you like; besides if you want to understand your “enemies” you need to know what they are saying.
There’s a relatively easy test for what politically-active conservative Christians will find offensive.
They want Christianity to have the legal status that posters on this board want homosexuality to have.
Bwaahhhaaaahaa! As a lawyer in practice for over 20 years I find myself laughing my posterior off about this idiot’s position. No doubt he believes that attorneys who defend criminal clients must agree with their clients’ criminal acts, too. It’s childish. We have enough incompetents in the law. Glad this moron flunked. Hope when he retakes the bar he flunks again. Of course, if he passes he can always try for a top job at the Justice Department with Al Gonzales and his cluster of Regent University right wingers. Twisting the law to their own purposes and demanding loyalty to party and person (Bush) appear to be part and parcel of the right-wing fundie legal position.
And the question is: “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?”
You’d think that since the question kind of proves some Christians’ arguments about how gays are unfaithful, violent, and immature, he’d be happy to see such a fair portrayal on his bar exam. Can’t win for losing, hm?
Sam Said: “They want Christianity to have the legal status that posters on this board want homosexuality to have.”
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that Christians do not have legal rights? As far as I know, they are not barred from practicing their religion, marrying, having children, adoption children, professing their beliefs, etc.
The question involved was clearly a question with clear legal concerns and asked for a factual answer, not an opinion. If you change “Jane” to “John” the man in question would have had no concerns at all.
To say that you should never have to come in contact with things that you don’t agree with is ridiculous. Particularly if you are a LAWYER and you want to be demonstrate that you are competent in all aspects of, you know, LAW.
This illustrates the sense of entitlement held by” just about everybody these days, it seems. Murphy, was that really the question? How’d you find out?
If this guy won’t answer a question about the legal situation on gay marriage, then we have to assume he would fail to accurately represent any gay clients he had whose case related to marriage. So he is unsuited to the bar. He should take up something less controversial for a career. The test is clearly a good one if it roots out people like this.
RonF — That was the question quoted in the article.
Aaaaand… this guy was extra-idiotic. Because he failed the MASSACHUSETTS bar exam. Which (unlike California, say) is not actually very difficult at all. With an 80% pass rate, the goal in Mass isn’t “be brilliant enough to pass,” but rather it”avoid being one of the idiots who fail.”
Pingback: Friday Blogwhoring at Shakesville
Did’ya ever notice that the right-wingers who complain about “activist judges” when they rule in favor of things like free speech rights and separation of church and state will file a lawsuit the minute they think their rights are being violated?
Irony is a concept that is wasted on these people.
Jaysus! 80% pass rate and he failed because he is obstinate and bigoted?
I just passed the California Bar (on try two) – and our pass rate is abysmal, overall.
Three days, two performance tests, six essays and a day of the multistate.
Quit your complaining, I say, to this rube.
Regarding the earlier comment about how Christians want their religion to share the legal status that posters here want homosexuality to have:
I think a better way of phrasing that is that the conservative Christians want their religion to share the legal status that they perceive posters here want homosexuality to have. The problem is that they’re conflating criticism with hate. See, we say that gays need their sexual orientation to be legally shielded from hate crime and discrimination, but they hear that gays need their orientation to be legally shielded from criticism. They then get all up in arms, as they sincerely believe that homosexuality is condemned by their religion. Thus, they view any protected status for GLBT folks to be a danger to their own freedom of religion and see their faith as under attack by the evil, liberal, secular, fag culture.
Conversely, they want this same legal status for themselves, not because they’ve any real fear of being denied employment or being beaten to death on the street, but because they wish to have their backwards views legally defended from criticism.
I think it says a lot about the leaders of the conservative Christian movement that they’re unable to parse the difference.
Did Dunne graduate from Regent Univ.? That would explain why the suit was even filed, I think.
OK, it seems my comment is leading to lots of confusion, so I ought to clarify it.
People supporting homosexual rights are basically arguing two things.
1) Being homosexual makes a difference, and the law needs to recognize that. A facially neutral law (men and women are free to marry anyone they want, but the partner must be of the opposite sex) is not enough.
2) Not-forbidden is not enough; legal recognition is important. The “closet consensus”–you can have whatever relationship you want, so long as it’s not publicly important–is not a sufficient compromise. It’s important that schools teach that homosexuality is normal; that employers do not discriminate against homosexuals; and so forth.
Politically-active right-wing Christians are basically arguing the same thing.
1) Being Christian makes a difference, and the law needs to recognize that. A facially neutral law (anyone can be a pharmacist, but they must be willing to provide abortifacients) is not enough.
2) Not-forbidden is not enough; legal recognition is important. The “closet consensus”–you can have whatever religion you want, so long as it’s not publicly important–is not a sufficient compromise. It’s important that schools teach that Christianity is normal; that employers do not discriminate against Christians; and so forth.
In other words, both groups are arguing that their identity is a public issue, not a private one.
For thpose who seem to be a tad confused by this:
1) This was a Massachusetts bar exam. There is some federal and/or common law on the exam, but the essay questions are state-specific.
2) By “State-specific” I mean “applying Massachusetts law.” The essay questions are designed to test lawyers’ abilities to practice in Mass, not in some other state.
3) Gay marriage IS LEGAL in Massachusetts. It’s LAW in Massachusetts.
SamChevre:
How is this neutral?
SamChevre: You seem to be under a misapprehension that homosexuality is promoted by Massachusetts law, and to want equal treatment for Chirstianity. If it were promoted, that would be fair. But it’s not. All the Mass. law does is apply a separation of sex and state that is the same idea as the separation of church and state.
The state has no business dictating or endorsing religion. The state has no business dictating or endorsing who may marry whom.
It’s that simple.
Christians already get to practice their religion. They don’t have to read books in school saying they’re a bunch of murderous witch-burners. Homosexuals are just barely starting to get their human rights. They’re just barely starting to be in a position where they don’t have to read about being a bunch of perverts.
So, no, your analogy doesn’t hold, because Christians and homosexuals are starting from two totally different points of social advantage or disadvantage.
Sam, Christians are already protected by the Constitution, so I can’t really figure out what you’re getting at. Besides, all anybody here really wants for LGBT folks is for them to have the same rights as everyone else. Seems like you’re falling into that “special rights” trap.
As for this lunatic: BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If he passed by a hair’s-breadth, that means that he got plenty of other questions WRONG. Meaning, he was not really an otherwise-qualified candidate.
In any event, not much of a legal thinker, is he?
SamChevre,
Here’s the problem with that argument, in my opinion.
First of all, schools do teach that Christianity is normal, to the degree that the issue comes up in their curriculum. The vast majority of teachers are Christian; in most history classes, the focus is on Christian areas of the world and on the mostly Christian people who did things in them; most of the fiction studied in most English classes is written by Christian people, often about Christian people; and so on. In addition, I believe that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion for employment anywhere in the United States; and this is ignoring the fact that in a majority Christian nation, religious discrimination is more likely to help than hurt Christians.
In response to your first point, I would argue that a law that discriminates based on gender is *not* facially neutral. On the other hand, a law that requires everyone who takes a certain important job be willing to fulfill all the functions of that job is clearly neutral in nature.
What a moron. He should know that his lawsuit has no basis, being a law student, but I have a feeling he thinks he should be given special treatment.
Lawyers aren’t required to believe their clients. They represent them in court. I think this guy is confused, and I wouldn’t want him for a lawyer if I ever needed one.
Also, Sam, take a look at the question this guy’s objecting to. It’s a straightforward domestic relations law question. It’s got nothing to do with the validity of gay marriage. Rather, it asks the person taking the exam to analyze the rights of the parties to the marital property at the dissolution of the marriage.
If the fact that Mary and Jane are lesbians has any significance at all in this fact pattern, it’s likely to be merely as a red herring. Meaning, the issue is the rights of the respective spouses to the marital property, not the sexual orientation of the spouses or how many people Jane’s going to go live with. The affair and the violence might have some significance, but I don’t know enough about Mass. domestic relations law to be sure.
It’s important that schools teach that homosexuality is normal; … It’s important that schools teach that Christianity is normal.
I disagree. The schools have no business teaching that Christianity is either normal, or not normal. Unless it’s a comparative religion class (fairly unusual in the public schools, I’d guess), the schools have no business teaching anything about Christianity except for things such as percentages of people who are religion “X” or religion “Y” in country “A”.
And they have no business teaching that homosexuality is “normal”; for one thing, the basis of homosexuality has not been established by science, and the morality of it is a matter of private conviction, not public fiat.
This illustrates the sense of entitlement held by many fundamentalist Christians today. Consider the fundamentalist pharmacists and emergency room doctors who refuse to fulfill the duties of their job, but push for laws exempting them from the consequences of that decision; or the Christians who have objected to biology exams that ask questions about evolution.
America has enacted the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which goes beyond providing a “sense of entitlement” to providing an ACTUAL entitlement, allowing exceptions only if the entitlement would prove to burdensome. What you are seeing as a fundamentalist entitlement mentality is merely an attempt to find the limits of the law which requires that exceptions be made to accomodate religious needs.
Do you also disapprove of non-fundamentalists who are making the exact same demands? Such as:
Minnesota cab drivers from Somalia who want to option to pass on driving passengers suspected of carrying alcohol:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-09-17-airport-check-in-usat_x.htm
Or the Philadelphia policewoman who sought an exemption from the “uniform requirement” to permit her to wear a headscarf?
http://howappealing.law.com/WebbVsPhiladelphia.pdf
Nope, you’re a cab driver. Drive your passengers or get fired. It’s your job.
Since I don’t see ‘not wearing a headscarf’ as an essential part of being a policewoman, I have no problem with this. That is, wearing a headscarf isn’t the same as ‘not doing your job’.
—Myca
First, the above commenters are right that a law that says you can only marry someone of the opposite sex is not facially neutral – although, to be fair, it is facially neutral as to sexual orientation. The facial discrimination is by sex (that is, a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot).
But, also in response to SamChevre, I would like to not only point out that discriminating against a Christian in employment based on their religion is illegal, but also take a poll of the posters on this blog: Do you believe both that it SHOULD be illegal to discriminate against a Christian in employment based on their religion AND that it SHOULD be illegal to discriminate against a gay or lesbian in employment based on their sexual orientation? Due to my unusual political philosophy I have to limit my answer to people employed by or on behalf of corporations, but personally I will say yes, I am fine with giving them the same legal status.
Of course, I doubt Christians NEED the protection nearly as much as homosexuals, but just in case, and to the extent it IS needed, sure, I am willing to endorse giving it to them.
Additionally, Sam’s example muddles the distinction between baseless government discrimination and job-performance based private discrimination.
That is, I don’t think it’s okay for the government to discriminate against you for being Christian, but I also don’t think that that means you can blow off doing your job as a pharmacist.
Similarly, I don’t think it’s okay for the government to discriminate against you for being gay (in marriage, say), but I also don’t think that that means you can blow off doing your job . . . if it . . . er . . . required . . . kissing women or something.
—Myca
Similarly, I wouldn’t have a problem with a Catholic seeking a uniform exemption to wear a crucifix on the job, but I would have huge problems with an Amish applicant refusing to carry a gun, drive or ride in a car, or engage in any violence as an officer.
—Myca
So, Sam Chevre — Are you telling me that you actually personally know any Christians who have been legally barred from:
*Marrying the love of their life, simply because they’re Christian?
*Being at the side of the love of their life in the emergency room, because they’re Christian?
*Transferring money to their spouse with whom they have lived with for 20 years (but who they can’t marry because they’re Christian) without paying gift tax, because they’re Christian?
*Adopting or fostering children because they’re Christian?
*Having their life-partner of 20 years included on their health insurance because they’re Christian?
If you personally know any Christians who have experienced one of these situations, I might be willing to listen to you. (I said “might”.) If not, I think you are being ridiculous. Because I personally know many GLBT people who have experienced these situations.
>> Or the Philadelphia policewoman who sought an exemption from the
>> “uniform requirement” to permit her to wear a headscarf?
>Since I don’t see ‘not wearing a headscarf’ as an essential part of being a >policewoman, I have no problem with this. That is, wearing a headscarf isn’t
> the same as ‘not doing your job’.
Since I have been in court for disarming an off-duty police officer who failed to identify himself as one, and who tried to draw a gun while a fight was going on, I think that wearing an uniform is very much part of being a police(wo)man. It
nearly got me kicked out of the country, and if I had not had an Institute lawyer
and the testimony of the campus police from the scene, it would have.
An officer of the law is supposed to be impartial and fair, and it helps when he
appears to be. I do not want him wearing a cross, I do not want him posting the
biblical commandments on his cruiser, and I do not want him wearing a headdress that proclaims he is a Jew, or a Muslim, or whatever.
Yes, that’s right, because wearing a headscarf (and police uniform, and carrying a badge) on duty is precisely the same thing as having no identifying police characteristics at all.
Of course I’m against the police roaming the streets without uniforms, but minor concessions to personal religious identity are just that . . . minor. Wearing a crucifix doesn’t stop anyone from arresting crooks. Wearing a headscarf doesn’t stop anyone from arresting crooks. I believe in the maximum religious freedom possible, as long as it doesn’t impact the job itself.
—Myca
The exemption is so that she can wear a headscarf with her uniform, not instead of her uniform. She’ll look like a cop wearing a headscarf.
There are police forces where special headscarves that present little choking hazard have been designed, such as that of Montreal.
Sikhs in the RCMP have been able to wear a turban instead of the regulation stetson since 1990, and although there were objections at the time, AFAIK it’s never caused any problems.
*Marrying the love of their life, simply because they’re Christian?
No, but then someone being the love of your life isn’t a legal qualification for being able to marry them in the first place, whether you’re gay, Christian or blue. Marriage law says nothing about love. People can be prevented from marrying the love of their life because they are their first cousins (in some states), because they are too young (also varying from state to state, although the overall concept is constant), etc. Love isn’t a legal enablement for anyone to get married, and the lack of it is not a legal disablement for anyone to not be able to get married.
That speaks to the issue of the neutrality of marriage law. If the legal definition of marriage was to provide state sanction for couples in love, then it would not be neutral by excluding homosexual couples. But in fact, there is no mention or recognition of the existence or non-existence of love between the couples, and in a great many cultures (including Anglo-Saxon and Judeo-Christian) love has had (and still has in many cases) little to do with it. I know or have known a few couples in arranged marriages, and they seemed to work as well as any.
Being at the side of the love of their life in the emergency room, because they’re Christian?
No one is banned from being at the side of anyone because they’re homosexual, either. Now, if someone who is related to someone in the emergency room decides that you shouldn’t be at that person’s side, FOR ANY REASON, then they can do so, but that’s up to the family member, not the state. What you’re asking for here is a special right to be conferred to a homosexual relationship that has not heretofore existed.
Decnavda:
It should be illegal to discriminate against either Christians or homosexuals in employment, except in such cases where a religious or moral issue is part and parcel of the job. So, for example, a Jewish synagogue should be able to discriminate against hiring either one as an organist or choirmaster.
Here’s an example: the Boy Scouts of America were brought into court in Chicago a few years ago for denying a homosexual employment as a District Executive. The person in question had walked into the Chicago Area Council’s offices and asked to apply for a job. When he was asked what kind of job, he said “any job”. He was told that there was an opening for District Executive. He then announced (unprompted) that he was homosexual. After being told that this disqualified him for employment as a DE, he left and sued. The Chicago commission for anti-discrimination hauled the CAC in front of them and found that they had violated the Chicago anti-discrimination ordinances. The BSA appealed to the courts. The Illinois Supreme Court eventually found that the BSA was within its rights to deny employment because a District Executive is charged with informing and enforcing the BSA’s policies, which includes legally discriminating against membership of “avowed homosexuals”. They noted, however, that the BSA would be on much shakier grounds if the person had applied for a clerical position.
I don’t see a problem with cops wearing a crucifix, yamulke (sp?), beard, or any other symbol of their faith as long as it doesn’t defeat the concept that uniforms should be uniform and interfere with their ability to do their job. I can’t see that wearing a crucifix would identify someone as a “Christian” cop rather than a “Chicago” cop and make them seem partial.
So, Myca and zuzu, you really see nothing wrong with people displaying their
allegiance to a religion, party or ideology on their uniform or in their
workplace, which happens to be paid by everyone’s tax money? People who are
supposed to be in service of society as a whole?
A Wiccan calls the police because someone vandalized her harvest wreath and the
officer who shows up wears a crucifix on top on his uniform. A Jew is pulled
over by a police officer wearing a swastika on his collar. An atheist tries to sue
the moron who threw his evolution book in the pool and the judge has the ten
commandments on the wall. You do not see a problem with that?
As far as I am concerned, the headscarf shows that you put your holy writ
before the laws you are supposed to enforce. So does any religious symbol, Mao’s
portrait or a swastika.
After reading all the comments, I am starting to think I am missing something.
I have served both in the army and in law enforcement, and in both cases,
adding anything, anything at all, to the uniform was explicitly forbidden.
Badges, cloth patches, extra stitches, scarfs, etc… even visible tattoos. We even
needed explicit permission to accept civil awards while in uniform and wear
them during the ceremony. After the ceremony was out of the question.
I guess this is not the case in the United States. If it isn’t, fine. But if it is, then
I am very uncomfortable with asking for an exception, or displaying any kind of
symbols despite the rules. Citizens should feel that they are equal under the
law. We are not, but having it rubbed in our face is wrong.
Okay, dude. Do you seriously not see the strawman here?
We’re talking about minor concessions. Bringing up things like “the 10 commandments posted in a courtroom” (which is on public property, not the judge’s person) and “a cop wearing a swastika on his collar” (The swastika is a symbol of hate, and would probably be ruled inherently disruptive) do not help your case.
Those aren’t minor concessions, and discussing them in this case is a little like . . . hmm . . . bringing up a policeman completely out of uniform pulling a gun without identifying himself as if it were even vaguely related to a policewoman clearly in uniform wearing a headscarf.
Furthermore we’re talking about things which are religiously required. The swastika isn’t a religiously required article of clothing.
Furthermore the swastika represents a political opinion, not a religion. Traditionally, you have much less standing for free speech on the job than religious freedom.
—Myca
I did say “religion, party or ideology”, because to someone who is not religious,
there is very little difference between them. Whether it is God, His prophet, or
the glorious leader who told you that you are the Chosen People, I do not care.
Whether you think that your back is covered by historical imperative, or the
bearded man in the sky, I do not care. All I see is that your respect something
foreign to me more than you respect the uniform you wear.
The swastika did not start as a symbol of hate. There have been times when
seeing the cross on someone’s tabard would scare at least some people – Poles,
Moors, whatever… I dare say that there are some religious symbols that are
quite scary in some parts of the world even today.
You talk of minor concessions. But for me, part of the job of a police officer is
appearing impartial. If his religious convictions are so strong that he cannot
obey the rules governing his appearance, I think he may not be able to do his
job right. This is why it matters what the law on uniforms is. If there is no
requirement to keep the uniform free of anything unapproved, sure, display
all the crosses and turbans you like. But if you feel strongly enough about
your religion to want to break an existing rule, how can I trust that you will
put your religion aside next time it comes into conflict with the law?
So let me try to come up with an absolutely non exaggerated example. That
particular Philly policewoman responds to a fight between a burka-wearing
Muslim, and provocatively dressed fake redhead. Will the redhead expect
fair treatment? Is it her right to expect that a police officer’s appearance does
not proclaim sympathy with her opponent?
Mind if I ask where you’re from? You seem to be making some assumptions that aren’t true of the United States, and knowing your frame of reference may help.
—Myca
Bulgaria. Former Eastern block, predominantly Slavic and Christian country
with a Muslim minority that was legally persecuted when I was in uniform.
It responded with violence, and as a member of a different, historically Muslim
minority, I got a job “liasoning”. In case it’s not crystal clear, I am an atheist
myself, and got my fill of religious insanity decades ago.
As for the assumptions, we have ex-Marines and an ex-policeman at work. Two
of them agreed that the rules are very similar here, but are enforced a lot more
in the police than in the Marines.
I do know that this is not a perfect world, and anyone with power is anything
but impartial, but I still believe that when you represent society, it is your duty
to put religion and ideology aside. If you cannot, find another job.
Oh, and before you pigeonhole me as a Communist henchman, please know
that military service was not voluntary, and neither was there much choice
in getting out of some services once you were in. I got out as soon as I could
once I stopped believing I was serving the country. Never joined the CP, either.
Lunacy? Actually, it is rather a breathtakingly brilliant gambit. Ignore the position he took, he probably doesn’t believe in it. He is just ‘practicing his profession’.
1: He is a fast learner. Sue the deep pockets and ask for an outrageous sum of money.
2: Sue over something controversial to generate lots of heat and press. Good advertisement for the near future when he does pass the exams. That means lot of name recognition and clients in the near future.
3: Don’t bring the case to trial, use delaying tactics to cost the other side a lot in legal fees.
4: The side benefit is the Board will get bombarded by the political faction with demands to remove the question. So there is a good annoyance factor.
My cynical anticipated outcome: The case will be quietly settled before the first of October. There will be a ‘regrading’ of the lawyers exam, and why look there, they misgraded questions 2 and 53, so he actually passed the exam with a 270.000000001. He might even manage to get $15,000 to $20,000 in go away money along coupled with a gag order about discussing the case.
Actually, this is just an extract from the question, which is more complex and raises issues about custody, marital property, validity of pre-nuptial agreements, domestic violence, and support (and probably some things I didn’t think of at first glance). The Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners has it posted on its website (click on “February, 2007” and go to question 4).
I don’t think there’s much doubt that the court will toss this case out. What will be interesting to see is whether the court will also sanction the plaintiff (who I believe is pro se) for filing a frivilous lawsuit.
Of course, he would have had a stronger case if instead of refusing to answer the question, he could have changed “Jane” to “John” and answered the question as if it involved a heterosexual couple. The legal issues would have been identical, and if he had shown some mastery of them, it would have been difficult for the Board not to give him at least partial credit, or if he didn’t want to challenge the board that overtly, he could have referred to the couple as “J” and “M.” His refusal to answer the question raises the issue of whether he would have been able to answer it even if it involved a heterosexual couple.
Hardly. The question asked him to analyze and apply current law, something he’d be asked to do as an attorney no matter where he practices. He’s not asking for the bar examiners to re-grade his exams to check for errors on the other questions he missed, he’s asking for a mulligan on that one question because it offends him. Well, guess what? There are plenty of areas of law that offend people of good conscience, but they have to know them to be at all credible as attorneys. And there’s no guarantee that he would have scored well enough on that question had it been phrased as “Murray and Jane” to pass.
So why should he get an unfair advantage over everyone else who took that bar exam and just answered the damn question?
And while you may think he’s “practicing his craft,” his craft doesn’t amount to squat unless he’s admitted to the bar. And publicity has limited value if you can’t back it up with actually being right on the law. Because court cases go through a whole lot of steps before they get to a jury.
Incidentally — if he’s taking the bar exam in February, there’s a good chance he failed the first time and this was the second try. I took it in February because I was in a program at my law school that started one section of the class during the summer and graduated our section in December; most people do their three years of law school on the standard schedule, and take the bar in July. If they fail, they re-take in February.
So maybe he failed the first time, but that question or similar wasn’t on the July 2006 exam (I tried looking, but my pdf capabilities are tricky), and he raised his score within striking distance of passing on the second try, but just missed it. So he blames the gays.
Correct, instead he is asking for close to $10,000,000. He doesn’t have to ‘ask’, it will be offered.
Those exam writers are too clever by half with the closet drug reference.
I don’t think the Board of Bar Examiners will offer to pay him a cent or to give him a mulligan on that question. I certainly hope they don’t because this case is even more frivolous than the million-dollar dry cleaning case. It’s also very unlikely that it will ever go to trial. In the first place he may have a jurisdictional problem because he’s suing a state agency in federal court, which (with some exceptions may or may not apply here) is forbidden by the 11th Amendment to the Constitution. Even if he gets past that jurisdictional hurdle, the case is likely to get tossed on a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.
If he’s lucky, they may offer a settlement along the lines of “drop the case now, and we won’t ask the court for sanctions.”
Both Mary and Jane are attorney’s, so what is with the bit about ‘Mary trusted Jane so she didn’t hire her own attorney’. She should certainly be educated enough on her profession to not need one.
‘Mary was three months pregnant at the time of the marriage’. Well Jane is obviously not the bio father. I wonder how come they didn’t put any facts into the case as to how Mary got preggers.
‘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’. So what is the punishment these days in Mass. for assault and battery? Looks like 2.5 years or a fine of $1,000.
That’s probably the Board’s way of illustrating the adage that the person who represents him/herself has a fool for a client. You may or may not agree, but that’s the official line. As for being educated enough in her profession not to need one, we don’t know what kind of law she practices. Unless it’s family law, she may not be particularly qualified to analyse a pre-marital agreement, even for herself.
They probably didn’t include it because it wasn’t important. Perhaps she became pregnant through AI. Maybe the biodad is dead. In any case, he’s not in the picture, and for the purpose of the question, it’s probably safe to assume that he’s not going to come into the picture later on. There are already plenty of issues to address with Jane’s and Mary’s respective rights without going down some rabbit trails chasing down the missing dad.
. . . and whether or not he passes the bar his second or third time around, he’ll have a nice job offer waiting from some fundamentalist organization, or perhaps with the Attorney General’s office. And probably a speaking tour too . . .
I also believe in allowing everyone a large amount of elbow room to express their individualities . . . however, I disagree with uniformed government employees wearing symbols which say “I’m a member of a particular club, and I need everyone to know it.” I wear a government uniform as a part of my job, and I see the purpose of the uniform as letting everyone know that I’m there to help them and keep everything safe. If I wear a cross, a scarf, a star of david, etc. it separates me from all the people who are not members of that club. Should I be allowed to wear a rainbow flag pin on my lapel? And, being queer, I don’t feel like I can completely trust someone who goes out of their way to tell me that they’re a christian by wearing a cross. It’s not that I think that all cross-wearers are out to get me, it’s just that I’m more uncomfortable with cross-wearers (based on my own prejudices), and my wariness makes it harder for the government employees to do their jobs well and keep everyone safe.
I don’t know about the scarf/turban/beard issue though. It seems like rules against those restrict entire classes of people from certain kinds of government employment . . . after all christianity and judism don’t require its adherants to wear charm necklaces . . . and it seems lik e law enforcement is an area precisely where we want to employ a good representation of all kinds of people. Hmm, and what about someone with a cross tatooed on his/her arm? would that be a disqualifier? These are slippery-slope questions, I think.
It isn’t just that though, is it? There’s the factual knowledge and then there’s the example in which it is embedded. People can object to the context of the example, without wanting to be exempted from knowing the facts. The obvious example are maths questions couched in the language of sports, feminists have sued over this and examining boards didn’t get off the hook by arguing that just because girls don’t like sports doesn’t exempt them from knowing how to add up.
Dunne’s position is a stretch. But I think there is a line here somewhere. Most people wouldn’t object to the girls/sports/maths example being legitimate. I’d feel a bit icky if I was doing accounting exams and they phrased optimisation questions in terms of the number of hours a sweatshop owner should make his orphans work, or whether the risks of getting taken to court are or aren’t great enough to mean you should give your female employees equal pay.
I think the point I’m trying to make is that if the examples had been different most people who are currently saying they don’t matter would perhaps change their minds.
The problem with the sports questions is that they require you to know something about the sport itself that’s not spelled out in the question. Like how many members on a particular type of team, or how long play goes on for, or what a particular term refers to, or what have you. If you don’t have the background to know what that refers to, you waste valuable time trying to figure that out just so you can solve the problem, putting you at a disadvantage.
There’s nothing in the question at issue here that does that. The relevant facts are all there, you just need to apply the law.
The bit about one spouse being pregnant at the time of the marriage has to do with presumed parentage. A child born during a marriage is presumed to be the product of that marriage and therefore the husband is presumed to be the father for legal purposes, no matter the actual parentage. I would assume that it works the same way for ssm, so that the non-pregnant spouse is deemed to have a legal parental relationship for purposes of custody and guardianship and inheritance later. It’s really meant to protect the child.
IOW, these are all issues that arise in a het marriage, too, and follow well-established rules. This guy just got so hung up on the lesbian thing that he refused to answer.
RonF:
[bold emphasis mine]
That is a breathtakingly ignorant point.
Homosexuals ARE and HAVE BEEN banned from being at the sides of their partners during medical emergencies when the partners cannot speak for themselves because by virtue of being in a homosexual relationship WE ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE LEGALLY FAMILY.
You must not be aware of what happened to Charlene Strong when her partner Kate Fleming drowned in their basement in a flash flood. Charlene was banned from Kate’s hospital room – until a “family member” intervened. The women had been a couple for about 10 years. I would posit they were just as much a family as any married hetero couple.
What we LGBTQ couples are
asking fordemanding is to be considered FAMILY in the eyes of the law so that WE can be by our partner’s side in the event of a medical emergency, so that WE can legally make the decisions on behalf of our partners in their hour of need, so that NO ONE aside from our partners can keep us away from our partners, so that we by right are of course the partner’s next of kin just as are heterosexual spouses.Because under the law we are not legally our partner’s next of kin, we are by definition LEGAL STRANGERS.
How the fuck being spouses in the eyes of the law impinges on the rights of anyone else is seriously beyond me.
Dunne’s position is a stretch. But I think there is a line here somewhere.
There’s not a line “here” at all. Dunne was asked a question about Massachusetts law. Because he flunked the bar exam, he’s throwing a little legal tantrum to try and get in anyway.
Imagine that Dunne had been asked a family-law question about the division of assets after divorce, and sued because his religion holds divorce is a sin. Do you think there would be “a line here somewhere”?
My cynical anticipated outcome
After you put down the crack pipe, try imagining how often disgruntled bar-failers sue over imagined errors on the Bar Exam. Consider the legal resources available to a pro se bar applicant vs. those available to the State Bar (which is made up of, like, lawyers). Rack your brain for the last time you heard of anybody suing the Bar over a failed exam and getting anything that might conceivably massaged into the category of ‘win’.
Mythago, I completely agree with you on all the merits. But please try to scale down your tone a couple of notches, if possible. Thanks.
It certainly was.
Ron, I’m genuinely appalled at the blithe insensitivity and lack of compassion your argument demonstrated. There is no significant real-world difference between “they discriminate against queers” and “they discriminate against non-family members, and it just so happens that queers aren’t allowed to become the legal family of their romantic partners.”
Fair enough, Amp. In retrospect, instead of a snide remark about smoking crack, I should have politely advised Nick not to swallow the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s propaganda quite so readily.
As if I’m not aggravated enough already . . .
james, your counter examples are not logically similar to the question on the MA Bar exam.
The question posed in the exam was not one of either interpretation or ethics. Law exam fact patterns and the questions posed are set up for the tester to do three things: (1) issue spot, (2) define and apply the relevant law, and (3) draw a legal conclusion. The exam questions must be answered in a dry, formulistic way: “The first issue is whether . . . . The rule for X is . . . . Here, when Mary did Y, her behavior did / did not meet element (a) of the rule because blah, blah, blah . . . . Therefore, Mary can / cannot do whatever.” Deviate from the format, don’t get points.
Neither your sweatshop nor your employee pay example is a fact pattern that lends itself to the Bar exam format. The point is to apply existing law to the fact pattern, not to have some sort of random etherial ethical conversation.
Virtually everyone who has been through law school understands this, and also understands that their own personal political or moral views matter not. That the jackass who is suing did not is irrelevant.
For example, one might highly disapprove, say, prostitution or intravenous drug use, but if the exam poses a fact pattern in which there is a 4th Amendment search and seizure issue when a prostitute or a drug user has been wrongfully detained or searched, guess what?
The test takers who, on moral grounds, disapprove both must still spot the issues, state the rules, apply the rules to the facts, and then draw a legal conclusion. If these so-called moralists don’t answer the question, they get zero points. It’s that simple.
I hope I’ve cleared up that little mystery for you.
Oh, and by the way, Bar exam test takers have tried every trick in the book to challenge. To my knowledge, none has succeeded. The rule is take the test as written. The subject matter is immaterial. End of discussion.
Now how did the Chamber get into this? That pipe was a nice comeback to the ‘Mary and Jane’ comment.
Oh no. That would not be enough income potential for somebody like this. Your being blinded by this snake trying using your particular hot issue for advantage.
I’d put him down for the PITLA industry. If he does ever pass the bar, either by this outside gambit or by taking and passing the exam the next time, he will be the type to sue hospitals or large companies for exorbitant sums of money. You know the type.
I wonder how in the world he came up with the $10 million dollar request?
Hmmm, comparative resources?
The resources available to the bar would be for the most part be limited to providing and grading the test. As a government organization the money is constrained to pre-planned expenditures. They would have a deep pocket of attorneys to tap, but mainly of the law abiding type.
As for him, hmmm. That is a good question. It does take money to play in the lawsuit game. He may be a trust fund baby. In that case, this suit lets him play and gain some notoriety til he can retake the test or coerce them into letting him pass.
Or perhaps he is the scion of a family of PITLA attorneys. He may have the resources of an entire major law firm behind him. The corrupt Mass officials may have a sticky political situation to deal with. He is not a Kennedy is he? or a second generation leach, perhaps from the firms that sued the tobacco industry?
More likely he just got hung up on that ‘family law thing’ and didn’t know the material at all. Someone who puts a $10 million dollar value on his failing the bar exam is probably not planning on getting into the family law business line. There is not enough money.
Interesting question. But are there any other issues hot enough right now to generate the same kind of third party heat.
Nick, the Chamber of Commerce is a major source of a great deal of “ZOMG TEH LAWSUITS HATE AMEREICA!!!1!!!” propaganda that you seem to have swallowed whole–I can’t otherwise explain your randomly peppering your post with comments about ‘deep pockets’ and ‘large companies’ (what–it’s OK to file a frivolous lawsuit against a small company?).
Your musings about comparative resources are also quite off-base. What makes you think that the State Bar has any incentive at all to roll over for every aggrieved moron who thinks filing a lawsuit will overcome having failed the bar? Or, for that matter, for aggrieved non-morons who have a legitimate grievance? Money’s not really an issue, musings about this guy’s personal finances aside. They’re a government entity, not a profit-making one. Their entire reason for existence is to be a rigid gatekeeper of who gets to practice law.
Oh, and if you really think that it’s that easy to win the Lotto by running to the courthouse, why don’t you give it a try? Are you that hesitant to set yourself up for a cushy retirement?
I may have missed it, but I don’t recall anybody bringing up the issue that for many women, NOT wearing a headscarf is a sign one is NOT a member of a particular religion, so it, too, is a religious marker. If one considers the default non-Muslim, then sure, it seems obvious that the religious marker in this case is the headscarf, not the lack of one. But that assumes a certain default that I’m not comfortable assuming. And yes I do recognize that some Muslim women don’t wear headscarves. Still, it is different from a rainbow pin or even a crucifix, as it is not just an optional declaration of a religion for many women.
Stephen Dunne- Bar-exam flunker sues: Wannabe rejects gay-wed question, law
I hate to admit it but I’m related to this ( Stephen Dunne )con-artist/thief. He failed the Pa. Bar exam 4 times and got into serious legal trouble in the Philly area and thought it was time to leave town, back to Boston where he went to school. As a close relative of this scumbag/politician type/ lawyer want to be, I would never ever do any business with this guy because he’d rob you blind and your mother too!!
Adding another late note here – I took a test last year to become a Certified Health Education Specialist. The test included a question about theories of treating obesity in adolescents. Of course I disagreed with the premise of the question, but I knew what the theories stated, so I could answer the question. Now I’m certified and I can fight the stupidity of the obesity treatment perspective having shown that I am quite familiar with the current theories. Responding to a test question about a theory (or in the case of the bar, a law) is not stating agreement with it.
I’m glad he flunked, as if any of us have ever come across a test question or situation of which we disagree.
What a baby!