The Washington Times decides gay is OK

Perhaps it was the lunar eclipse.

Or maybe Obama's magnetic charisma has turned Republicans from pythons to pooties.

Or maybe the bile rising up in its collective esophagus was finally just too much.

Whatever the reason, the Moonie-owned Washington Times has taken its first steps into the 21st century -- baby steps mind you -- by trashing some of its golden-oldie, right-wing ThinkSpeak.

New editor John Solomon has been on the job about a month and has already issued an earth-shaking edict on style. Style refers to a newspaper's accepted word usage. Most newspapers use the same Associated Press style, but each paper embellishes AP style with its own little quirks.

The Washington Times' quirks have involved slanting words with a right-wing flavor by referring, for instance, to gays as homosexuals. Now, however, the Times has decided that it is OK to use the word "gay" to refer to gay people.

Here are some recent updates to TWT style.

1. Clinton will be the headline word for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

2. Gay is approved for copy and preferred over homosexual, except in clinical references or references to sexual activity.

3. The quotation marks will come off gay marriage (preferred over homosexual marriage).

4. Moderate is approved, but centrist is still allowed.

5. We will use illegal immigrants, not illegal aliens.

And the paper will no longer make mocking reference to gay marriage by putting the word marriage in quotation marks.

Notice, too, that "illegal aliens" has now been banned. Apparently, those coming into the United States illegally from Mexico will not be discussed as though they were from Mars.

No one is suggesting, of course, that the Washington Times is about to become Rolling Stone. But the cesspool stinks slightly less today.

Semantics are important. It's not just words, as Sen. Obama likes to say. Words have power and meaning and shape debate. From such trivial-seeming skirmishes are wars won.

•  Tip jar

  by quaoar on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:11:28 PM PDT

  •  However, the word

    "journalism," with regard to the paper, will still be in quotation marks.

    by jazzmaniac on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:16:30 PM PDT

    •  Perhaps it should be called

      a "news"paper.

      by quaoar on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:18:12 PM PDT

    •  Thank you - that is the second funniest thing I

      have read hear this year.

      by ETinKC on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:02:29 PM PDT

  •  It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.

    This gets the Washington Post half a kudo from me...but only half, mind you.

    by Elsinora on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:18:30 PM PDT

  •  Are these changes Reverend Moon-approved?

    by kate mckinnon on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:20:50 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the find

    through such small things are victories cemented into society.

    this makes me happy.

    onwards and upwards.

    by holder on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:59:54 PM PDT

•  Good for them.

  I always chuckled to read about gay "Marraige" becoming law in Massachussets in a paper published by a  religious nut who married thousands of strangers by matching them piggly-wiggly by pulling names out of a hat.

  by SpiderStumbled22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:19:13 PM PDT

•  Progress even in truly revolting places

  is still progress. Maybe the gay conservatives have made those inroads they always tell us about. Thanks for the update.

  by DaleA on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:19:13 PM PDT

•  But but but but

  they ARE from Mars!

  why else wouldn't they speak English?

  by RumsfeldResign on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:35:34 PM PDT

•  How many thousand "marriages" did Moon preside

  over while these changes have been happening.

  Being insulted by this paper on issues of marriage is like getting lectured on ethics in govt. by Nixon.

  What happens if two gay men who are here without proper immigration paperwork get married but vote for politicians in the political middle?

  What if Hillary Clinton visits two women who are married to each other and they discuss immigration by people who are breaking the law?

  What sort of term do they use to describe "marriage" by a couple of thousand people at the same time in a stadium?

  And how much profit are they making off all this?

  by 7November on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:38:57 PM PDT

  •  Wait, are you calling right-wing extremists

    "hypocrites"?

    "Heaven" forbid.

    by wader on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:59:22 PM PDT

•  One small step for man,

  one giant leap for the Conservative Movement.

  Next up, "Democrats are Human too".

  by blueintheface on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:41:29 PM PDT

•  Hmm,

  I wonder how this will change things between me and dad.  He subscribes to The Washington Times (and National Review).  He's come a long way since I came out, but there are definitely plenty of growing edges left.

  by dirkster42 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:52:39 PM PDT

•  I disagree with this one

  1. Clinton will be the headline word for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

  To avoid confusion with President Bill Clinton, the headline word should be "Hillary Clinton," "Sen. Clinton" or "Mrs. Clinton."

  Alex
  Choose Our President 2008

  by ourprez08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:14:07 PM PDT

•  I'M SCARED!

  Because this surely means the real employees of The Times have disappeared due to the rapture and that Armageddon is coming.

  OMG people! We were left behind!! HIDE!!!

  by Erik W on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:53:27 PM PDT