A Massachusettes man who failed the bar exam is suing because he refused to answer one question, which may have meant he passed. The question he refused to answer?
”Dunne, who is representing himself in the case, refused to answer an exam question addressing the rights of two married lesbians, their children and their property, and claims in the suit that it cost him a passing score.”
He refused to answer on the basis of his religious convictions. He thought this legitimized practices he believes illegitimate. The Massachusettes Law Weekly castigated him. The exam, they assert, is to test knowledge of the law. It is not to make value judgments on that law. In Massachusettes, lesbians are allowed to marry and divorce like the rest of sinful humanity. So, what happens with property and child custody (which is complicated because one or neither parent may have any genetic stake in the matter)?
So, what do you think? Place yourself in his shoes. You are being tested on your knowledge of the law. You believe a particular law is unjust or immoral (pick your own instance), what do you do?
I see some of his point- it does seem part of the agenda to placate special interests. But should the state placate his, or my, special interests? I suspect not. Anyone person of faith who goes to a public institution of learning will face this issue. We are tested on our knowledge of the material, not our views on that material. Even in seminary, I had to know various heresies. I also had to know theological positions espoused by the seminary to which I did not hold (at that time). Unlike some schools, they didn’t mandate I say I believe those things. But I had to understand them to pass my exams and get my degree. This man has to know the law to get his license and practice law.
What this points us to is a bigger problem: the need to address this question on the national/federal level. The inconsistency of states on this particular point of law will wreck havoc on American society. People move, and the marriage that was legal in one state may not be legal in the new state. What happens when such couples divorce? Especially when they are now in different states? Is it a legally recognized marriage, and therefore divorce? No one in Washington wants to take the PR hit on this, but it has to happen for the sanity of the society. It cannot be left up to states to sort out on their own (there are very few of these types of questions- but this is one). Washington’s refusal to act plunges the nation into this moral and legal chaos.
Knowing all this is a choice the two people made. They didn’t have to marry, but they did. So, this means their marriage is only valid in certain states. Those are the states where they need to live in order to practice their marriage vows. No different than the concealed weapons laws , the different speed limits, etc. I don’t see the problem.
Marriage laws are a bit more significant than handgun laws and speed limits.
No one I know determines whether or not to take a new job somewhere based on the speed limit or handgun laws.
This is an issue that will affect where people groups move. You could start to see a form of segregation based on the marriage laws. That is not in the best interest of society.
The gov’t should decide what is in the best interest of the country as a whole, not a special interest group. but… we know that many politicians are beholden to special interest groups for election support. So … stupidity reigns.