Ranting to /dev/null

Not as implausible as it sounds

Some jackass who failed the Massachusetts bar exam is suing the Bar Association and several of its officers in federal court (link goes to complaint). Why? Because he says that the only reason he failed is because he refused to answer a question relating to homosexuality on the exam. The actual question is not provided, probably because bringing the questions out of the exam is almost certainly not allowed. The plaintiff essentially argues that a successful answer to the question would have required an affirmative statement of support for homosexual conduct, marriage, and parenting, a statement which plaintiff refused to make. He then contends that his refusal to answer this question is the sole ground for his failure, and alleges various kinds of discrimination and demands about $10 million plus a declaratory judgment that asking about homosexuality is unconstitutional.

On first glance, this seems pretty ludicrous. Dude: you failed the bar exam. It happens. Try again. Almost everybody passes, though there are plenty of people who don't pass their first time. No one cares. But literally making a federal case out of it is a Bad Idea, because that becomes a matter of public record and gets your name in the papers as a whiny bitch. So don't do that.

The complaint, like all pro se complaints, is not particularly well written. The statement of facts is far too brief, and doesn't include important things like, say, the actual question on the exam. The statement of jurisdiction is about ten times too long (this should take about one page, not eleven pages), and he cites pretty much everything he could find. Yes, legal authority is good, but learn to tell what your two or three best points are and just make those. If those don't work, your weaker ones aren't going to either.

The crux of the actual argument goes as follows: the "homosexual agenda" is part of the "irreligion" known as "Secular Humanism" [caps in original] and requiring anyone to support this violates their constitutional rights. Yep. That's what he says.

Actually, he might have a point. Trying to describe the "homosexual agenda" as part of a particular ideology identifiable as "Secular Humanism" isn't likely to work (I'm guessing Gene Robinson would have a thing or two to say there, though I'd probably have a thing or two to say to Gene Robinson when it comes right down to it). But the suggestion that requiring adherence to a particular socio-political viewpoint to pass the bar is unconstitutional is not without merit. Badly put--and the court isn't going to show the same kind of leniency to legally-trained pro se litigants as it does to prisoners--but not without merit. Religious tests are prohibited in the Constitution, and the Court is very likely to find that religious tests for any non-religious position are unconstitutional. One's religious beliefs might well prevent one from signing on to the legalization of homosexual marriage.

The downside of this is that Massachusetts has pretty liberal laws regarding homosexual unions, so without reading the actual question, it's impossible to know if they're really just asking about the state of the law in Massachusetts. It would not at all surprise me if our plaintiff had simply overreacted to a question which required him to give an answer in terms of existing state law. If the question had been "Do you like gay sex?", he probably has a case. But I've a sneaking suspicion that it's something a bit more subtle.

Anyways, it's a long, rambling complaint and not really worth the read. He's got eleven different causes of action listed, most of which aren't worth talking about, including interference with interstate commerce. I kind of thought that kind of "commerce" was illegal, but we are talking about Massachusetts, after all. The case isn't going to go anywhere, which is kind of a shame, because I'd actually be interested in seeing someone worth a damn take a crack at this issue.

Posted by ryan at July 5, 2007 07:22 AM | TrackBack