Gay Marriage Question Spurs Bar Exam Suit

Aspiring Massachusetts Lawyer Says Question Violated His Rights And Targeted His Religious Beliefs

(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."

[toldyouso21]

torocaca,
Thanks. Whew, I am just glad it wasn't The "dancing queens theocratic agenda!" I guess it is the "agenda" part that always bugs me. If *** do have an agenda, I am sure it doesn't affect me. (And like the religious right doesn't have an agenda) which very well could affect me.
Posted by kansas1946 at 11:36 PM : Jul 06, 2007


Nope. What he was saying is that human secularists, (read nonbelievers in God) want to promote gaayyyys as a way to further destroy religion and its place in society. The arguement being that if there were no human secularists, the Christians would run government (no separation of Church and state), gayyyyys would stay in the closet, not adopt and not get married and evolution would not be taught in schools.; All of these factors supposedly are part of a secret agenda to rid the country of Christians. This type of thinking is necessary to justify their own irrational and reactionary thinking to the rest of the world. And yes, I do believe in God, but I cringe at the man made mess of religion.

[toldyouso21]

HE must have graduated from the same law school as that crazy judge who cried and sued for millions over a pair of lost pants. This just highlights the loonies we now have in positions to either lead us, judge us or represent us--all incompetent, vindictive nutjobs.

[ngrzrtrash]

Yeah, no $h1t, this idiot just cornered himself making some stupid stand when all he had to DO was cite LAW. Stupid. He deserves not to pass the bar, if THIS is his egotistical approach to actually crrectly defedning his clients, then FU(K YOU, and off you go to join the ACLU!!

[akpals]

If he gets any money out of this ( and I'll pray that no judge will even hear this case), maybe I'll sue my college professor for making me take an exam on evolution. I wish these crybabies would shut up and realize that EVERYBODY'S rights are violated sometimes. Everybody has to answer questions that are uncomfortable, and everybody in any profession comes across moral dilemma. Too bad. If his morals are so strong the idiot should have realized that by answering the question and becoming a lawyer he may have brought some good to someone somewhere (although I'm not sure how).

[susanhelit]

Sounds to me like he didn't know the answer, and figured he'd play the religion card. What an idiot. The bar exam is simply to see if you know the law. No one agrees with all of the laws.

[firststate]

The Bar exam is supposed to establish the applicant's knowledge of the law and his/her ability to reason and represent his/her client's interests at law. If Mr. Dunne is so distressed by Massachusetts laws and their application, he should consider seeking admission to the Bar in another state. Both a description of the exam's subject areas and the laws of Massachusetts are readily available.

Apparently Mr. Dunne isn't offended by crime. He didn't mention refusing to answer criminal questions. Apparently pedophilia, murder, rape, incest, armed robbery, embezzlement don't offend his sensibilities. Yet, questions about property distribution, where the parties are homosexual, are too offensive to be addressed. He has a right to his beliefs, but the Bar has an obligation to screen it's applicants for knowledge of the law and its application, without regard to an applicant's beliefs, or prejudices.

He may be trying to establish a reputation with our homegrown, Taliban-like, Christian extremists and bigots of every sort before he enters practice. If his suit is indicative of his legal reasoning skills, he may need that boost in name recognition.

[caldwellptr]

And what about the other questions that he answered on the exam incorrectly? Would he have filed suit had he gotten a passing score on the exam but still skipped the question?

[likeitis5050]

He's right up there with the Judge heart broken over dry cleaning. Nuts. The legal system is a magnet for idiots and opportunists who want to cash in on tax payer time and money. Throw him out with the bath water. We don't need him.

[kansas1946]

torocaca,
Thanks. Whew, I am just glad it wasn't The "dancing queens theocratic agenda!" I guess it is the "agenda" part that always bugs me. If *** do have an agenda, I am sure it doesn't affect me. (And like the religious right doesn't have an agenda) which very well could affect me.

[oleander8]

This guy defines serious homophobe.

[arepublic]

First, did he answer the criminal law section of the bar exam? I'm sure that the offender murdered someone, which, I presume, would also be "morally repugnant and patently offensive." The inconsistency in his personal inner dialogue is "patently offensive."

Second, I think that opposing counsel should file for Rule 11 Sanctions against this idiot and make him pay for the waste of the taxpayers time. This suit was surely filed for improper purposes and to harass - which is prime for sanctions!

[nothappyatall]

"He said he refused to answer the question because he believed it legitimized same-*** marriage and same-*** parenting, which is contrary to his moral beliefs."

TOO BAD, the test was not to ask whether you agree with the question or not- it was to see if you knew the laws and if yu can handle CLIENTS and confidentiality without prejudice. He failed that because of his own biggotry and hate, the legal system doesn't need bibull thumper type lawyers it needs fair, impartial, non-judgemental professionals who take care of the paying CLIENT first, foremost and confidentially whether you agree with their morals, lifestyle, financial aspects, marital status etc- you are not there to look at their beliefs or s3x lives you are there to represent or defent a paying client in court.

Throw this guy out, dismiss his frivolously stupid suit and let the guy take a night job as a custodian.

[sclaires]

This individual sounds like some lawyers I have come across who only went to law school because it was "the thing to do". And to not make a passing grade is his fault and not the fault of the bar. He should have studied more and perhaps he would have passed without answering the question he didn't like. It is only his fault for not passing and not anyone else's. I would tell him to grow up!

[alimech]

God...he doesn't need to be a lawyer! Wich a closed mind to the rights of the rest of the US, he could do no good, and only perpetuate the status quo.

[timbobmc-2009]

I always thought the bar exam was to show how much of the law you knew, not whether or not you agreed with it. Am I wrong?

[eccentric506]

a person who graduates and passes the bar exam is still a lawyer. Legal ******** where it matters not what side you represent as long as you get paid. Legal Solicitors. If women passed a bar exam (not a bar) then the crime of soliciting for *** wouldnt be illegal, They dont care who they are *** as long as they get paid.

But in any professional exam be it the BAR or MD or AIA or PE there are enough questions to answer that missing one should not be an issues unless the person is totally unprepared for the exam.

[torocaca]

"purposely advancing secular humanism's homosexual agenda."
******************
Can anyone tell me exactly what this is?
Posted by kansas1946 at 07:26 PM : Jul 06, 2007
______________________

Well, not exactly. But here's a "tongue in cheek" layman's attempt to intrepret:

secular means "not concerned with religion" or in the sense above: "not controlled by a religious body." e.g.: Darwin's "theory" is secular; creationism is the religious version.

humanism means "belief in a human-based morality" or "values, characteristics, and behavior that are believed to be best in human beings, rather than on any supernatural authority."

Of course humanism could also be secular, so the terms are redundant in the sense used.

So, put it all together and we have "purposely advancing the agenda of non-religious gay people." LOL!! As if all gay people are non-religious. Or perhaps they are just ignoring the agenda of religous gay people. But, in MA? I doubt it.

This obviously refers to the state of MA being the "birthplace of gay marriage." However, seriously religious people (fundamentalists) don't recognize the religious rights of ***, just as they don't recognize many of the rights of the rest of us.

singingrick could probably give you a less-secular translation.

[kansas1946]

"purposely advancing secular humanism's homosexual agenda."
******************
Can anyone tell me exactly what this is?

[dnamj]

Insert lawyer joke here. Actually this whole thing is a joke. He's going to represent himself for failing the bar exam. Isn't it ironic?

[randalds]

Probably then Bush'll give him a job . . .
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 06:34 PM : Jul 06, 2007

The next Attorney general? White House counsel? Supreme Court nominee? LOL