Boston Man Sues Over Gay Marriage Question on State Bar Exam

[AlteredEgo]

What do you think? Do you think he would have made this an issue if he'd have passed the exam? He gives reasons for refusing to answer the question, but I think he's copping out. He says answering the question would imply his support of same sex marriage, and same sex child rearing.

Here's the question as edited by the news folks:

The exam question at issue concerns two married lesbian attorneys and their rights regarding a house and two children when one decides to end the marriage.


“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?”

Seems to me he doesn't have a leg upon which to stand. I figure he's angry that he didn't pass after three years of schooling, and months of studying. I think he'd blame anything at all (except his own state of readiness to practice law in MA). I've seen that before. If he scored a 268+, he got more than just the one question incorrect. You don't need a perfect score on either part of the 2-day test; you need a combined score of 270. Does anyone else think this sounds like a stretch?

Have some articles:

Fox News
Boston.com
The Boston Herald
LifeSiteNews

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

yes. The fact that he's making a lawsuit out of this is proof positive he should never be allowed to practice law. "Your honor, I don't believe this is right, even if it is lawful," ain't gonna hold up in court.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Wow, NIC, you read s fast as you type! LOL Yeah...

The guy is suing to have the unanswered question not be considered when grading his exam, and is also challenging the constitutionality of the legality of the set of laws in question in the first place. If this is how he chooses to treat the law after spending three yers immersed in it, I don't think very highly of his potential.

 

[B_buhballs]

...so said the people who know nothing of law. Let's ask the cat, too.

 

[AlteredEgo]

...so said the people who know nothing of law. Let's ask the cat, too.

When you assume you make an ass... or so the saying goes.

 

[kalipygian]

Do we have a troll nouveau, or a troll reprise?

 

[AlteredEgo]

I think that's what novice wanted to know. I don't recognize them. I haven't spent much time here lately though.

 

[novice_btm]

I think that's what novice wanted to know. I don't recognize them. I haven't spent much time here lately though.

Don't say I didn't send up a warning flag VERY early on in the game. :tongue:

 

[B_big dirigible]

Man sues state bar ... sounds like an advanced student to me. A very advanced student. Remember the old law school saying - "A" students become professors, "B" students become judges, and "C" students become lawyers.

"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". Even in Massachusetts, that's weird. I suspect a trick question.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Man sues state bar ... sounds like an advanced student to me. A very advanced student. Remember the old law school saying - "A" students become professors, "B" students become judges, and "C" students become lawyers.

"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". Even in Massachusetts, that's weird. I suspect a trick question.

The weirdest part is that nowhere can I find a complete and unedited version of the question. Parts are missing. One source says the lesbians are both lawyers. No source I found shows the part of the question which provides this (albeit useless) information which makes me wonder what else is missing. I'd like to read it in entirety. (My cat would too LOL)

Regarding the old law school saying... What about the saying about pro se cases? Do you think it's true that anyone who represents himself has a fool for a client?

 

[B_big dirigible]

Regarding the old law school saying... What about the saying about pro se cases? Do you think it's true that anyone who represents himself has a fool for a client?

So lawyers say ... but of course, they would, wouldn't they?

 

[AlteredEgo]

So lawyers say ... but of course, they would, wouldn't they?

See? There you go considering the source again! P

 

[D_alex8]

a complete and unedited version of the question. Parts are missing.

"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?"

Link to full exam text [as .pdf file]

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Any significance in the parents' names Mary Jane?

 

[dong20]

AE is spot on. Dunne clearly failed to answer other questions and/or answered other questions incorrectly so unless this is merely an opening salvo of "I refused to answer <insert 'offensive' question here> on the grounds that <insert excuse here>" then whining "I have been hard done by - now, give me money, plenty of it, and sharpish".

Regardless of one's personal stance on a law (a law remember, not an opinion) on Gay marriage in MA if one is to take the bar exam there - given the comparatively recent (i.e. during his studying!) change in the law surely it would seem likely to anyone doing so that the issue may arise.

"Dunne claims the question was used as a &#8220;screening device&#8221; to identify and penalize him for &#8220;refusing to subscribe to a liberal ideology based on &#8216;secular humanism,&#8217;"

Sold.

It seems to me that a more sensible action (given he was clearly not a potential 100%-er) would have been to have answered the question, (maybe) pass the bar, then sue for an 'actual' breach, not merely an 'contrived' one. That way, had he represented himself he would at least be a qualified fool, or tool - either may be used.

$9.75 million, for voluntarily failing an exam on the grounds that the question challenged my view on something? Grapes abound, and rather sour ones at that. I should have tried that for those questions I didn't answer in exams over the years, I could be rich today. *

* In reality, any questions I didn't answer will have been on the grounds that I had little to no idea what they were on about.:redface:

 

[DC_DEEP]

I think he's just doing it as a self-marketing ploy on the off chance he actually passes the bar. He's eager to get hired by

"Frivolous, Gratuitous, and Ambulancechaser, L. L. C."

I think that's the same law firm that agreed to represent Linda Carlson in "Carlson v. eHarmony, et. al."

 

[dong20]

Cynic.

 

[Lex]

This is the most ridiculous attempt at nothing that I have ever seen. IF he is going to practice law in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages, he MUST have an understanding of how child custody, and property division comes into play when said marriages are dissolved.

Answering the question has nothing to do with his support of same sex marriages or anything else. It does, as NIC_160 pointed out, have everything to do with his understanding, willingness and competence to practice law.

That is like saying "I did not answer the question about Miranda Rights because I think attempted murder is wrong." WTF?

 

[HotBulge]

100% agreement with Lex. The fact this is a same-sex couple is more of a distraction or circumstantial fact that does not impact the legal reasoning as it pertains to antenuptials, divorce, and child custody laws. I am definitely not a lawyer, but you could equally substitute Mary = a Martian and Jane = a Venusian, and the same legal reasoning about antenuptials, divorce, and child custody laws in MA should still apply, since MA is the jurisdiction under consideration. The only questions that are valid (that I recognize immediately) are:

• Are the all terms of the antenuptial still valid? In particular, part (iii) - "they would not seek or accept child support or alimony from the other" - is subject to reconsideration. Mary could legitimately claim that she signed the antenuptial w/o a consultation of a lawyer and therefore was not fully aware of the implications of the contract. Jane, in contrast, drafted the agreement with a lawyer and therefore had decent counsel.
• What visitation rights should be negotiated for all the children, especially if both women were attached to all of the children?
• Should Mary receive child support, at the very least, for the 2nd child Philip who have Mary and Jane jointly listed as parents?
• Does Mary deserve some alimonial support for a limited time since an abrupt separation would cause immediate hardship and could indirectly jeopardize the care of the children?

The MA Bar Association could have created variations on the same theme, and the law should apply. What if it were a man + woman, but the man stayed at home to tend to the children? What if it were the classic Mike and Carole Brady '70s scenario where Mike cheated on Carole, and Carole decided to divorce Mike, taking all 6 children with her? The legal reasoning exists independently of these people's sexual orientation.

The idiot test-taker should also have thought that this hypothetical scenario may be a realistic scenario. Actually, it's already happened here in MA. There were 6 gay/lesbian couples that were the first to wed in MA in 2003. One of the lesbian couples among the 6 homosexual couples, divorced. The MA courts therefore had to evaluate all of these issues about antenuptials, custody rights, and spousal support in this new context.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Funny, but this brings to mind a quote from the works of W. Shakespeare:

Faith, I have been a truant in the law,
And never yet could frame my will to it;
And therefore frame the law unto my will.

And if it's taken out of context, the quote from Dick Butcher is tempting: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Unfortunately, in context, it doesn't mean as it sounds...