A few months ago, Stephen Dunne filed a lawsuit claiming his refusal to answer a question about same-sex marriage caused him to fail the Massachusetts bar exam. Now Dunne is dropping his suit, because “the patently offensive and morally repugnant question” wasn’t included in the July exam.

Dunne characterized this change as a “corrective action” by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners. The board characterized this analysis as hooey.

Dunne’s lawsuit was comprehensive, as it claimed that answering the essay question about married lesbians would have violated his Catholic beliefs and First Amendment rights, and it also challenged the constitutionality of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s 2003 decision supporting same-sex marriage.

The guy couldn’t pass the bar, but when it comes to whiney, self-serving litigiousness, Dunne zooms to the head of the class.

Having read the essay question, I think that Dunne simply missed an opportunity. He might’ve passed the exam and now be getting paid to lob lawsuits at same-sex marriage if he had adopted a more practical approach.

I’m putting the real exam question in italics, and following with what Dunne should’ve written.

Mary and Jane, both attorneys, were married two years ago in Massachusetts. There’s your first problem – two attorneys under the same roof. It doesn’t bear thinking about.

The day before their marriage, Mary and Jane each fully disclosed their assets to the other (Fools!) and signed an antenuptial agreement in which each of them agreed that if they were ever divorced (i) they would divide any joint marital property evenly, (ii) they would not seek or accept any property that the other brought into the marriage, and (iii) they would not seek or accept child support or alimony from the other. Oh sure. And cows will give Pepsi.

The Agreement was drafted and reviewed by an attorney representing Jane. Mary did not hire an attorney to review the Agreement as she “trusted Jane.” Remind me never, never to hire Mary as my attorney.

At the time of the marriage Jane had a two year old adopted child, Philip, and Mary was three months pregnant. It astonishes me how these lesbians manage to become mothers. They’re more creative than novelists.

When Mary gave birth in Boston six months later to Charles, (Named for the river? How Bostonian) Mary and Jane were listed on his birth certificate as his parents. Mary has treated and referred to Philip as her son, although she did not adopt him. Are you sure Mary is a lawyer?

Mary, Jane, Philip and Charles lived in a house in Boston owned by both Mary and Jane. The down payment for this house came only from Mary. And a sizeable payment it must’ve been. If you don’t pass me, I’ll never be able to buy a house and raise a family in this town.

Jane was the sole supporter of the family, while Mary stayed at home taking care of Philip and Charles. Mary had no savings, while Jane had more than $1 million in savings from an inheritance that she received when her mother died three years ago. What are the chances I could lure wealthy Jane from her wicked lesbian ways? I could save her and myself at the same time!

Yesterday Jane got drunk and hit Mary with a baseball bat, breaking Mary’s leg, when she learned that Mary was having an affair with Lisa. Our wedding’s off. I value my legs.

As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane in order to live in her house with Philip, Charles, and Lisa. Lisa’s moving in already? The hussy.

What are the rights of Mary and Jane? I shudder to think.