Boston Man Sues Over Gay Marriage Question on State Bar Exam

[transformer_99]

This reminds me years ago of the written driving exam in FL (USA). To pass, you couldn't miss more than 5 questions. They had exactly 5 questions on DUI/DWI and I got all of them wrong. Fortunately, the real meat of the exam I was perfect on and passed. After taking the exam, I thought I'd at least have guessed one of those 5 right, statistically speaking that is. Well, I don't drink, so those 5 questions were simply immaterial to whether or not I can drive a car. But had I missed another question, yeah, I'd be pissed off too ! :wink:

Oh, the question is superfluous. Does being lesbians have any bearing on the rest of the mess outlined in the question ?

 

[B_buhballs]

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.

Uh, no. He can decline to represent someone whom he believes to be morally reprehensible.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Uh, no. He can decline to represent someone whom he believes to be morally reprehensible.

Unless he happens to be a public defender... but what does that have to do with him suing the state bar for having a particular question on the exam?

 

[DC_DEEP]

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

While we are at it... I seem to have forgotten... In which state are you licensed to practice law?

 

[Principessa]

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?

Thank you Lex, for injecting some succinct sense in to this inane gab fest.

Uh, no. He can decline to represent someone whom he believes to be morally reprehensible.

Huh? I must have missed the memo on this...since when are lesbians morally reprehensible?

 

[mindseye]

I wouldn't want a lawyer who "supported" murder or rape, but I'd damn well expect him to know what the law said regarding these things.

There's clearly a difference. Dunne has bought into the all-too-common crybaby mentality that Christians should never have to encounter anything challenging. They shouldn't have to read about evolution in schools, they shouldn't have to go to jail for the things they say, they shouldn't see Janet Jackson's boob, or a condom inside a school building. It's okay to kill brown people halfway around the world where we don't have to look at them, but that day-old undifferentiated morula you're carrying -- that's sacred!

 

[novice_btm]

Huh? I must have missed the memo on this...since when are lesbians morally reprehensible?

Tick-tick-tick-tick...

 

[DC_DEEP]

I wouldn't want a lawyer who "supported" murder or rape, but I'd damn well expect him to know what the law said regarding these things.

There's clearly a difference. Dunne has bought into the all-too-common crybaby mentality that Christians should never have to encounter anything challenging. They shouldn't have to read about evolution in schools, they shouldn't have to go to jail for the things they say, they shouldn't see Janet Jackson's boob, or a condom inside a school building. It's okay to kill brown people halfway around the world where we don't have to look at them, but that day-old undifferentiated morula you're carrying -- that's sacred!

THANK you, mindseye. There was a topic here a while back about a christian guy working as a clerk in a public store. He refused to serve a group he perceived as homosexual, and the manager supported him, ordering the other employees to take up the slack.

When you undertake certain professions, you will be put in situations. If you cannot handle those situations, you don't need to be in those professions.

"I want to be a store clerk, but I don't like working with the public. Accomodate me."

"I want to be a sailor, but I get seasick, so I don't want to be on a ship. Accomodate me."

"I want to be a gynecologist, but I think pussy is gross, so I don't want to have to examine any women. Accomodate me."

"I want to be an attorney, but I don't want to handle any cases that I think are controversial. Accomodate me."

It goes on ad nauseum.

 

[Lex]

Uh, no. He can decline to represent someone whom he believes to be morally reprehensible.

Yes he can unless, as DC DEEP pointed out, he is a public defender, then he needs to be prepared to represent ANYone under ANY circumstances.

Also--finding someone reprehensible because they are gay is bigotry. If you are a bigot, this is probably not the site you want to visit.

I wouldn't want a lawyer who "supported" murder or rape, but I'd damn well expect him to know what the law said regarding these things.
There's clearly a difference.

Excellent point. I expect lawyers to have competence in the law, not just the law pertaining to the types of cases they prefer to be involved in.

Dunne has bought into the all-too-common crybaby mentality that Christians should never have to encounter anything challenging. They shouldn't have to read about evolution in schools, they shouldn't have to go to jail for the things they say, they shouldn't see Janet Jackson's boob, or a condom inside a school building. It's okay to kill brown people halfway around the world where we don't have to look at them, but that day-old undifferentiated morula you're carrying -- that's sacred!

These types of individuals are the reason I have begun wearing gay pride t-shirts all the time on the weekend. I love it when they stare and whisper while Bubba and I go about our everyday business (shopping in Homo Depot, Bed, Baths and Bottoms, etc). I will not hide and let these bigots think that I (we) are afraid. We are everywhere.

Next.

 

[mindseye]

These types of individuals are the reason I have begun wearing gay pride t-shirts all the time on the weekend. I love it when they stare and whisper while Bubba and I go about our everyday business (shopping in Homo Depot, Bed, Baths and Bottoms, etc). I will not hide and let these bigots think that I (we) are afraid. We are everywhere.

You think they'd learn the 10-year rule. Not exactly ten years, but it takes about a decade of concerted effort to build a national movement. I'm oversimplifying here, but:

• In the 1910s, social conservatives decided that alcohol was immoral, and they fought against it, and won a temporary victory in 1920 with the Eighteenth Amendment. Anti-prohibition forces got organized, built up a national movement, and got prohibition repealed in 1933. (In the process, they got a Democratic president so popular that a Republican would not win the office again until 1952.)
• In the 1950s, social conservatives fought against Brown by oppressing black people in every other way they could -- on buses, in restaurants, etc. Resistance was local at first: a bus boycott in Montgomery in 1955, a sit-in in Greensboro in 1960. By 1963, there was a march on the nation's capital (where Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech took place), and the Civil Rights Act was passed the following year.
• In the mid-1980's, social conservatives used AIDS as an excuse to beat up on gay people at every turn. The arrest of Michael Hardwick by Fulton County police for having sex in his own bedroom, and firing of gay schoolteachers throughout the country, led to revolt. At first, again, this was local revolt: ACT-UP in New York (1987), Basic Rights Oregon (1988), OutFront Minnesota (1987) -- and in time the movement became national -- there was a small march on Washington in 1987, followed by a much larger one in 1993. We won employment non-discrimination rights in several states during the 1990's, an important right to privacy (Lawrence v. Texas) in 2003, and equal marriage in one state in 2004.
• So it's 2007 -- what's the new thing social conservatives are beating up on now? Science, mostly: they're opposing the teaching of evolution and stem-cell research.
• My prediction: by 2020 (the end of the next decade) same-sex marriage will be legal in at least a dozen states and DOMA will be repealed; the squabble over the teaching of evolution will be over, and the stem-cell controversy will have died down to a small gurgle. Social conservatives -- losing ground against same-sex marriage -- will redraw their line in the sand at adoption by same-sex couples (think of the children!).

 

[DC_DEEP]

You think they'd learn the 10-year rule. Not exactly ten years, but it takes about a decade of concerted effort to build a national movement.

A bit off-topic, but related to your post, mindseye. The comic strip, Candorville, in today's paper:

Marriage concepts

 

[B_buhballs]

(1) I didn't say I was an attorney. I suggested that some of the legal analysis being offered here was clearly not coming from attorneys. That doesn't mean that I am one.

(2) I didn't say I found anything morally reprehensible. I said that an attorney is under no obligation to represent someone whose behavior or beliefs he finds morally reprehensible. It is relevant because many have suggested otherwise in this thread, or suggested that such a person is somehow incompetent, or incapable, or whatever, which is totally untrue.

(3) No lawyer has competence in all areas of the law - such an assertion is ridiculous. Call up the top 25 personal injury firms in your city and ask them to try an antitrust case. Good luck.

As to the analogies laid out by DC_DEEP - they're inapplicable. Because of (3), attorneys do in fact engineer their practice. They have any number of perfectly valid reasons for avoiding certain practice areas. The analogies offered all posit a person who has an aversion to a fundamental requirement of the job. As applied to attorneys, one would have to posit an attorney who wanted to practice law, but wanted to do it by ignoring courts, statutes and regulations in their chosen practice area. That is clearly NOT this situation. Again, the attorney who declines to represent someone for moral or ethical reasons presents no difficulties at all.

 

[B_buhballs]

[F]inding someone reprehensible because they are gay is bigotry. If you are a bigot, this is probably not the site you want to visit.

Well, YOU say it's bigotry, but others believe otherwise.

Leaving that aside, you seem to be suggesting that I might be a bigot (by your definition) - but I'll point out that I did NOT say that I consider anyone reprehensible. In any case, you've made me curious - what else do I have to agree with you about, Lex, in order for this to be a site I want to visit?

 

[Lex]

You think they'd learn the 10-year rule. Not exactly ten years, but it takes about a decade of concerted effort to build a national movement.

I would also think that they were intelligent but everytime I try to believe that they let me down by standing upon archiac beliefs and logic over fact.

• My prediction: by 2020 (the end of the next decade) same-sex marriage will be legal in at least a dozen states and DOMA will be repealed; the squabble over the teaching of evolution will be over, and the stem-cell controversy will have died down to a small gurgle. Social conservatives -- losing ground against same-sex marriage -- will redraw their line in the sand at adoption by same-sex couples (think of the children!).

Yes. These idiots would rather children live in orphanages that in the homes of adults who will cherish them. Of course, they also believe that homosexuality = pedophilia. Again, read the facts, people.

BTW--me and Bubba have 4 biological and one step child between us. I think they will all turn out fine!

(3) No lawyer has competence in all areas of the law - such an assertion is ridiculous. Call up the top 25 personal injury firms in your city and ask them to try an antitrust case. Good luck.

No, but they need basic competence and understanding of the law which is why they have to pass a test. This guy failed the test, due in part to his own bigotry. Good for the test, I say.

As to the analogies laid out by DC_DEEP - they're inapplicable. Because of (3), attorneys do in fact engineer their practice. ..

Yes, AFTER they pass the BAR. THis guy may want to study up and pass and then engineer his ass to middle America.

Well, YOU say it's bigotry, but others believe otherwise. Leaving that aside, you seem to be suggesting that I might be a bigot (by your definition) - but I'll point out that I did NOT say that I consider anyone reprehensible.

No, you did not say that. You implied that finding someone reprehensible (on the basis of orientation given that is what this thread touches) was okay. Disliking someone because of something about themselves that they can not change (race, gender, country of origin, orientation) IS bigotry. People who believe otherwise ARE bigots. FYI--biogts tend to think it is okay to hate. The 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act say different.

... In any case, you've made me curious - what else do I have to agree with you about, Lex, in order for this to be a site I want to visit?

You don't have to agree with me at all. Some of my fondest fellow posters are people that I don't see eye-to-eye with on all subject matter. Please understand that this is a site devoted to cock and is FULL of gay and bisexual men and women (as well as some cool straight men and women).

As such, posting such as the one you made earlier in this thread will win you little more than hostility here. We like people who can love everyone's rights to be who they are without making anyone feel less than human.

 

[HotBulge]

(1) I didn't say I was an attorney. I suggested that some of the legal analysis being offered here was clearly not coming from attorneys. That doesn't mean that I am one.

(2) I didn't say I found anything morally reprehensible. I said that an attorney is under no obligation to represent someone whose behavior or beliefs he finds morally reprehensible. It is relevant because many have suggested otherwise in this thread, or suggested that such a person is somehow incompetent, or incapable, or whatever, which is totally untrue.

Yes, a lawyer is not legally obligated to represent someone that he/she finds morally reprehenisble, unless the attorney is a public defender. This still has nothing to do with answering a test question, however. It's not for the test taker to agree or disagree with a particular law; the test is about applying a form of legal reasoning.

Lex is also correct: the test taker was exhibiting bigotry. If the test question read, "a man and a woman, who signed a antenuptial contract, are now divorcing ...", the test taker would have had no problems thinking through the question. It's the reasoning through the law - not the circumstantial background of the plaintiff and defendant - that is being tested and should only be given weight.

 

[scorpio1444]

He says answering the question would imply his support of same sex marriage

What if there were a question concerning two guys who were, say, mob members who robbed a bank together, got caught, and later were trying to pin it on each other to avoid prosecution. Would answering that question imply that the test-taker supported organized crime?

 

[scorpio1444]

P.S. There are probably things that happen every day in the court in the name of the "law" from sleezy lawyers that are way more reprehensible than anything that Mary or Jane would have done in their bedroom! And Mary and Jane probably hadn't done it in years anyway, so what's the problem....

 

[DC_DEEP]

What if there were a question concerning two guys who were, say, mob members who robbed a bank together, got caught, and later were trying to pin it on each other to avoid prosecution. Would answering that question imply that the test-taker supported organized crime?

No. It would imply that he understood the hypothetical question, knew the answer, and wanted to pass the test.

How's this for a mind-blower... the guy whined that answering the question would imply his support for that hypothetical situation. But that's assuming he is defending. What if he was asked to represent a plaintiff in a similar case? If the hypothetical question was something along the lines of "Mary's mother, who disapproves of Mary's situation, is suing for custody of the children."

Would the fellow still find the question morally reprehensible, simply because it referenced homosexuality (and therefore refuse to answer the question) or would he most likely jump on that one with glee?

 

[scorpio1444]

GREAT point!!

With a mind like that you should be a lawyer!

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

(3) No lawyer has competence in all areas of the law - such an assertion is ridiculous.

He wasn't being asked to represent these hypothetical people, nor was he being asked his opinion on any controversial or moral issue, he was being tested on his knowledge of and competency in interpreting the law. What would you propose, buhballs, as the ideal bar exam, if not one that asked you to answer questions about the law? Should prospective lawyers be able to come up with their own questions, dealing only with cases that they would choose to work with? The man who failed the exam is making claims that are patently absurd...

that's all. mindseye, lex and DC have already made a number of other good points in this thread.