Posted on 07/03/2007 4:44:11 PM PDT by wagglebee
BOSTON, Massachusetts, July 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A man who was given a failing grade on the Massachusetts bar exam has filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages and is demanding a jury trial, claiming that he failed the exam after refusing to answer an inappropriate question on homosexual marriage.
Besides requesting that bar examiners do not consider the offending question when grading his exam, however, Dunne is also challenging the very constitutionality of the homosexual "marriage" laws in the state of Massachusetts. In the list of defendants Dunne includes the Supreme Judicial Court and the individual Justices.
In his complaint Dunne states "that Supporters of homosexual marriage have successfully legislated morality through the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court," and "that this act is an unconstitutional violation of the Massachusetts Constitution by the Massachusetts Supreme Court."
Dunne scored 268.866 on the bar exam, just short of the passing score of 270. A simple pass is all that is required on very demanding bar exams which are the last step to becoming a practicing lawyer in a state.
According to Dunne's complaint, filed on June 25, the "Defendants" (the Massachusetts Board of Examiners et al.) "have engaged in constitutionally invidious discrimination by including an inappropriate question on the Massachusetts Bar Examination compelling Plaintiff (Dunne) to write an affirmative response explicitly and implicitly accepting, supporting and promoting homosexual marriage & homosexual parenting…as a prerequisite to the practice of law in the State of Massachusetts."
Brian Rooney, a lawyer and the spokesman for the Thomas More law center, a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, has analyzed the pertinent documents about Dunne's case. He told LifeSiteNews.com, "It's a troubling development that a question like this would even be asked. It raises the specter that homosexuality and the homosexual agenda and the lifestyle is becoming the sacred ring that it seems that everyone in the state of Massachussetts would have to kiss in order to be deemed acceptable to do anything in the state, whether to practice law, to practice medicine, to become a politician."
Although in Dunne's filed complaint he does not specify which question on the exam he refused to answer, presumably the question that is the subject of Dunne's complaint is question #4 on the March 1, 2007 Massachusetts bar exam. That question asks examinees to analyze certain legal question surrounding the divorce of a lesbian couple, Mary and Jane.
"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," reads the conclusion of the question. "As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane…What are the rights of Mary and Jane?"
While Rooney said that ultimately he could not say whether Dunne should or should not have answered the question, he said the nature of the question is so "charged" and "distracting" that it should never have been included on the bar exam.
"The whole workup to taking a bar exam is months of studying and preparation, not to mention three years of law school," said Rooney. "You work yourself up. You take that three years of law school, you cram it into 2 ½ months, trying to learn every aspect of the law that could potentially be tested. You get into the 2 days of testing. You're tested for 8-10 hours each day. As the spokesman for the Thomas More law center, it's very troubling to have such a politically charged question on the bar exam that is supposed to be testing your knowledge of the law and how it is to be employed, and they throw in this obvious political question that got Mr. Dunne to be distracted. It would have distracted me, or anyone of faith that believes homosexuality is immoral."
William F. Kennedy, the chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners, which administers the test, would not comment on the case, reports The National Law Journal. "The complaint is being reviewed," he said. "We have no comment at this time."
See the bar exam question on pg. 5 of the following document:
http://www.mass.gov/bbe/essayquestionsfeb2007.pdf
Read Stephen Dunne's complaint:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/upload/2007/07/dunne.pdf
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Study and pass the test Mr. Dunne.
Why is Defendants in quotes?
I’m not sure.
the bar exam is at least 1/2 state law. If the state laws are dumb, you have to learn dumb state laws. Move.
Because they believe they're innocent and the suit is of no merit?
it looks to me like the author opened the quotes, then thought he had to close them and re-open to insert his parenthetical explaining who the “Defendants” are. I can’t see an agenda behind the quotation marks.
Poor writing skills?
...the "Defendants, [the Massachusetts Board of Examiners et al.], have engaged in constitutionally invidious discrimination by including an inappropriate question on the Massachusetts Bar Examination compelling Plaintiff [Dunne] to write an affirmative response explicitly and implicitly accepting, supporting and promoting homosexual marriage & homosexual parenting…as a prerequisite to the practice of law in the State of Massachusetts."
I'm no writer, but that's my guess.
Therefore there would be no clear answer to the question on the exam. If he answered correctly, he would have failed. If he answered the way the examiners wanted it answered, his answer would have been wrong, even if he had passed.
I almost feel like sending this off to my son and daughter in law who will soon be taking the bar.
My wife is a lawyer and I remember when she was studying for the exam. Trust me, you’re son and daughter in law don’t need any more stress.
He has a great future.
if he cannot take those facts and analyze them under the existing laws of the state, he has no business being a lawyer. That was a typical hypothetical. If there is no clear answer, argue yes and no. If MA law is screwy, then go through all it’s screwiness. There is often no clear answer. If there were, there would be almost no litigation. It looks to me like he could have put forth some sort of effort on the question and passed. He can’t base a meritorious lawsuit on what might have happened had he answered a certain way. Sounds like he was looking to sue.
The law is an ass.
What an idiot. He should have answered the question based upon Massachusetts law. Then, if he passes, he can work to change the law, or, more likely, move away.
he needed to address the question. Lawyers may choose to represent a client or not but he must be able to logically approach the questions a potential client raises. He did not have to take a position just describe the current state of the law, rulings of the M[ass] Sup Court. and issues of property, assault, etc.
He should have been able to pass the exam without answering the question. Just suck it up and take the exam again.
So even if he had gotten it right he would have barely passed. When I read the headline I thought this was an example of petty vindictiveness of failing someone for not answering a question. Instead it is a law student who needed every point he could get but he skipped some of them. Not only should his case be thrown out, he should be charged for the court's and the state's legal expenses.
There are going to be a lot of laws you don't like but will have to handle in court as a lawyer. Even if he wants to pass the bar and fight against gay marriage, he would have to understand the current law/judicial decision on it.
I just though you would want to know about this..(disgusting).
Oh, by the way..have a nice 4th!
-blessings, :) Jeremy S.
Happy Independence Day to you, too! Thanks for the PING! Appreciated!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.