A Whole New Level of Stupid

I've been reading Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism (thanks Alison!), and it's made my usual newsreading, which already includes a large dose of feminist news, harder to stomach.

As a result, when I read this, I couldn't resist the urge to post something about it.

From the Boston Herald story:

A Boston man who failed the Massachusetts bar exam has filed a federal lawsuit claiming his refusal to answer a test question - related to gay marriage - caused him to flunk the test.

Stephen Dunne, 30, is suing the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, claiming the “inappropriate” test question violated his religious convictions and his First Amendment rights. Answering the question, Dunne claims, would imply he endorsed gay marriage and parenting.

So what's the controversial question? This, as far as I know, is the entire text of the question:

“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?”

Oh, for fuck's sake. Seriously? He got bent out of shape over that? If I were in a position to do something about it, I'd make sure this asshat never got a license to practice law. This incident proves one of two things: Either Dunne is incredibly stupid, or he has no respect for the law or other people (or both, frankly). Either one (especially the latter) should disqualify him from getting a license.

Allowing someone to practice law whose actions actively undermine the legal system is just about the very definition of stupid. It's about time professional associations start doing a better job looking at the actions of people who are undermining their organizations from the inside. I'm also speaking, of course, about pharmacists...more on that later.

I found the story over at Majikthise, courtesy of zuzu, who has something to say on the matter:

I mean, you did study law, right? You learned how laws work? And how court decisions work? And that knowing what the law *is* and how it works doesn't mean that you approve of the outcome. Right? I mean, just because I could tell you how the Supreme Court voted in, say, Bush v. Gore doesn't mean that I *approve* of the outcome.

Also, I didn't realize that the First Amendment was designed to prevent people from being exposed to ideas they don't like. Hm. My high school government teacher must have been slipping in her old age.