He added that when McLachlan discovered Page was speaking with gay-straight alliance groups at area high schools, he told the communications director, "I might go home every night and beat my wife, but I don't come into work and talk about it." ... "I was called a fag in the locker room at Yale Field when I was covering the New Haven Ravens and that didn't bother me as much as what McLachlan said. I will remember that 'til the day I die."
Shorter McLachlan: Being gay = going home and beating your wife, which, in addition to being a violant violation of one's marriage vows, is illegal.
An enterprising reporter might follow up with Senator McLachlan with, "You said you might go home and beat your wife. Do you?"
Sometimes reporters have fun asking politicians questions and then letting them talk:
McLachlan, when asked about the comments Monday, called them "absolutely absurd. I have friends who are gay." ... He declined further comment.
But, alas, the Senator's many gay friends will be disappointed to find out that his new-found 'tolerance' doesn't extend to them formalizing their loving relationship like the straights can:
On Monday, McLachlan said he stands by his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
"It's a philosophical difference," he said. "Some people believe in gay marriage, and some people believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what I believe. That's the bottom line."
It's going to be awkward at the next Gay Friends of Senator McLachlan to Prove He's Not a Bigot BBQ.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
