People may find this a little harsh. However, people need to accept the consequences for their actions instead of resorting to - what else? - litigation.
I read an article about Stephen Dunne of Boston, who has sued the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners for $9.75 million because he filed to pass the bar. He claims he failed because he "refused to answer a question addressing the rights of two married lesbians, their children and their property." Of course, it might be he failed because his answers to the other questions were inadequate, but for argument's sake, let us assume his allegation is true.
"In the suit, Dunne's called the question 'morally repugnant and patently offensive,' and said he refused to answer it because he believed it legitimized same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, which is contrary to his moral beliefs."
Mr. Dunne is entitled to his beliefs, but the fact remains that the law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts recognizes such unions and - like it or not - the bar examination is to test how well you know the law. It is not about whether you agree with the law and when you finally pass the bar examination, and proudly raise your right hand to take an oath to uphold the law of your jurisdiction, oh ye newly-minted officers of the court, you do so for all of the laws - it is not a question of picking and choosing as an attorney.
If you do not like a law, then do not take a case involving it or take the side of a case where you can argue against it, or argue why it should not apply to your facts. That's what lawyers do. In any case, a lawyer must have respect for the law.
Sometimes my clients will become angry with opposing counsel because they do not like the position the attorney takes. Oftentimes, I point out to them - if it is true - that the attorney has a legitimate argument . . . it may be weak, it may be strong, it may produce an outcome my client will not like, but that attorney is justified in setting forth the argument so long as there is no misrepresentation of the facts and the application of the law to such is reasonable.
I can sympathize with Mr. Dunne in some aspects. I detest abortion, but Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land and I would - if forced into such a case - argue vigorously and vehemently as to why it is distinguished from my facts at hand. I believe homosexuality is an inherent mental disorder and I do not agree with the lifestyle - but, as a family attorney, if I saw a case where I felt a lesbian partner was being inequitably treated by a former partner in a family court regarding property, I would fight tooth and nail for that woman to remedy unfairness (when people ask me, "why did you become a lawyer?", my "short answer" is "because I hate bullies").
"He said the bar exam is not the place for questions about same-sex marriage."
In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it is the very place for such a question. And you, Mr. Dunne, if you do not like same-sex union laws, then present a well-reasoned argument against it, which requires you to demonstrate a knoweldge and understanding of that against which you argue. That is why every state requires an examination before they allow a person to be given the honorific, "Esquire." Remember that you have a duty of competency to your clients.
Now stop whining, dismiss your suit, and hit the books for the next time the bar is offered. Or get another career.