Gays threaten to give military fabulous makeover (Photo: Associated Press)

Last week, the Washington Times dropped its editorial take on Don't Ask Don't Tell. The editorial was titled "Queer eye for the G.I." [1: unrelated and suspiciously dated queer Bravo reality television program reference].

Let's count all the other homophobic inferences peppering the Times' copy! Featured: References to closets, winks, and switch-hitting; liberal use of the term "homosexual"; a prominent "sashay."

2. "The Obama administration's attempt to have it both ways [thinly-veiled inference of bisexuality] with homosexuals in the military has failed, at least for the moment."

3. "The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday stayed a reckless lower court order that attempted to overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law prohibiting homosexuals [rule of homophobic editorials: never just say "gay"] from serving openly in the military.

4, 5. "Hence, while Assistant Attorney General Tony West urged the appellate panel to block the Phillips ruling temporarily, Mr. Obama was giving a wink [gesture construed as a form of "gay harassment"] to the Defense Department, which quickly came out [the Defense Department is gay] in favor of recruiting homosexuals into the armed forces."

 6, 7, 8, 9: "It appears that as the White House rams its radical homosexual agenda [use of phrase "radical homosexual agenda"] through the military [anal sex imagery], too many generals and admirals are willing to sell their brothers in arms down the river [assertion that equality for gay people is tantamount to modern slavery] if it means they can keep a shiny set of stars on their epaulets [Implication that military supports gays for fashion benefits].

10, 11: "The destructive force unleashed by the Pentagon's collaboration with the leftist agenda is apparent from the circus [Implication that gay people are 'freaks'] created when homosexual activists like Dan Choi sashayed [submitted without comment] over to the Times Square recruiting center to make a political point in the short period in which the Phillips order was effective."

12, 13, 14: Treating military recruitment primarily as a diversity issue opens up a closet [a closet!] full of absurdities. On what basis, then, would the military discriminate against the elderly? Why can't grandpa become a paratrooper? [rhetorical questions conflating gays with grandparent bias] Should the military not reject someone merely because he is handicapped? Why not a wheelchair-bound infantryman? [rhetorical questions conflating gayness with disability]"