This just in: Massachusetts "advancing secular humanism's homosexual agenda"

[SLCPUNK]

BOSTON (AP) -- A man said he failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer a question about gay marriage, and claims in a federal lawsuit the test violated his rights and targeted his religious beliefs.

The suit also challenges the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, which was legalized in Massachusetts in 2003.

Stephen Dunne, who is representing himself in the case and seeks $9.75 million, said the bar exam was not the place for a "morally repugnant and patently offensive" question addressing the rights of two married lesbians, their children and their property. He said he refused to answer the question because he believed it legitimized same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, which is contrary to his moral beliefs.

Dunne, 30, was denied a license to practice law in May after scoring 268.866 on the exam, just shy of the 270 passing grade.

His lawsuit against the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court also claims the state government is "purposely advancing secular humanism's homosexual agenda."

The "disguised mechanism to screen applicants according to their political ideology has the discriminatory impact of persecuting and oppressing (Dunne's) sincere religious practices and beliefs" protected by the First Amendment, and was "invasive and burdensome," according to the lawsuit filed last month.

Dunne's telephone number was unlisted. He told the Boston Herald he has a law degree from a Boston law school and is attending a Boston business school.

Officials with the state bar would not say how much the questions are worth or how the tests are scored, and the court also declined to comment.

David Yas, editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, said the suit was "idiotic" and that Dunne was "completely missing the point about what it means to be a lawyer."

"Knowing the law has nothing to do with agreeing with the law," he said. Yas said if Dunne really believed the question was improper, he should "answer the question correctly, get your law degree and use it to argue for what you believe in."

Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said Dunne is trying to use a legal question to advance a political agenda.

"The bar exam was a test of whether he knew how to apply domestic relations law, and he refused to answer," she said. "Now he's suing, and I think that makes him a loser."

[freedom78]

They have right-wingers in Massachusetts? 

Having spent a day in Provincetown, I'd never have thunk it. 

I wonder how many other questions the guy missed. 

[GeraldFord]

They have right-wingers in Massachusetts??

Having spent a day in Provincetown, I'd never have thunk it.?

I wonder how many other questions the guy missed.?

We had Republican governors from 1991 to 1997.

His lawsuit is absurd, completely absurd. If you don't want to represent a particular client because you are a bigot, fine, but you have to answer the question on an exam so your knowledge of the law can be determined. You can't pick and choose what questions you want to answer. Then anyone could just not answer a question for whatever reason. Someone could not answer a question about the sale of meat on a math exam because he/she is a member of PETA and finds it offensive.?

[pilferk]

David Yas, editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, said the suit was "idiotic" and that Dunne was "completely missing the point about what it means to be a lawyer."

"Knowing the law has nothing to do with agreeing with the law," he said. Yas said if Dunne really believed the question was improper, he should "answer the question correctly, get your law degree and use it to argue for what you believe in."

Precisely.

The question wasn't "Do you believe it gay marriage and gay parenting"....it was "What is the law of the commonwealth of the state of Massachusettes in regards to gay marriage and same sex parenting".

There is a right answer, regardless of what Dunne's moral compulsions are.

Period.

[freedom78]

They have right-wingers in Massachusetts? 

Having spent a day in Provincetown, I'd never have thunk it. 

I wonder how many other questions the guy missed. 

We had Republican governors from 1991 to 1997.

His lawsuit is absurd, completely absurd. If you don't want to represent a particular client because you are a bigot, fine, but you have to answer the question on an exam so your knowledge of the law can be determined. You can't pick and choose what questions you want to answer. Then anyone could just not answer a question for whatever reason. Someone could not answer a question about the sale of meat on a math exam because he/she is a member of PETA and finds it offensive. 

Yeah, but is a Massachusetts Republican really a right winger?   

Either way, this lawsuit is ridiculous.  He claims the question is meant to filter out people of his ideological or religious beliefs.  I doubt it, but even so, it's not the most clever trap I've ever seen.  All you have to do is answer the question, and you've "beaten the system."  What a dipshit.

[pilferk]

His lawsuit is absurd, completely absurd. If you don't want to represent a particular client because you are a bigot, fine, but you have to answer the question on an exam so your knowledge of the law can be determined. You can't pick and choose what questions you want to answer. Then anyone could just not answer a question for whatever reason. Someone could not answer a question about the sale of meat on a math exam because he/she is a member of PETA and finds it offensive. 

Precisely.

As a lawyer, you have the right to choose your clients.  You still need to KNOW the law, whether you agree with them or not, and your bar exam is demonstration of your knowledge of the law, not your moral fiber.

What he's NOT saying is that.....the one question isn't what cost him his bar exam, because answering ONE question incorrectly wouldn't result in a failing grade.  He's just chosen THIS question to harp on because it's an easy target.............

[freedom78]

His lawsuit is absurd, completely absurd. If you don't want to represent a particular client because you are a bigot, fine, but you have to answer the question on an exam so your knowledge of the law can be determined. You can't pick and choose what questions you want to answer. Then anyone could just not answer a question for whatever reason. Someone could not answer a question about the sale of meat on a math exam because he/she is a member of PETA and finds it offensive. 

Precisely.

As a lawyer, you have the right to choose your clients.  You still need to KNOW the law, whether you agree with them or not, and your bar exam is demonstration of your knowledge of the law, not your moral fiber.

What he's NOT saying is that.....the one question isn't what cost him his bar exam, because answering ONE question incorrectly wouldn't result in a failing grade.  He's just chosen THIS question to harp on because it's an easy target.............

I can't figure out why this is worth $9.75 Million.  Shouldn't he just sue for the $100 or whatever it costs to retake the exam?  I'm betting that retakers generally do better the second time, so that question would be a non-issue if he can get others correct.

[pilferk]

I can't figure out why this is worth $9.75 Million.  Shouldn't he just sue for the $100 or whatever it costs to retake the exam?  I'm betting that retakers generally do better the second time, so that question would be a non-issue if he can get others correct.

Is this his first time taking the test? Not that it matters...I think you can sit the MA bar an unlimited number of times...I know you can in CT.

It's true that historically first time bar takers fail more often, but I'd also read that number has changed drastically from what it was before.  I wonder what the stats are now...I know the pass rate is right around 65%, but not sure how that breaks down.  I'll have to ask around to see if anyone around here knows (and I'm sure they do.....).

[stolat]

He should watch "And Justice For All" over and over again.