Alabama High School Will Let Cynthia Stewart Go Gay at Prom!

Cynthia Stewart, the lesbian Alabama high school junior who was barred from bringing her girlfriend to the prom, will be able to slow dance with her gal after all. Even before the ACLU got involved, supposedly the school district was "already in the process of re-evaluating the issue and concluded Stewart's girlfriend can attend the prom in March as long as she is cleared through a screening process that all out-of-district dates must undergo when attending similar school functions." We want photos!

Queerty

Robert Bellamy Jr. Bashed 2 Guys Because 'God Made Me'

Military's Own Research Concludes Gay Soldiers Are OK

While the Pentagon loses millions by dismissing well-trained gay soldiers because of their sexuality, they've also been spending money — since 1957 — researching whether gay soldiers have any effect on military preparedness. And the resounding answer? From the military's own research? NO.

That's what Col. Om Prakash's much-buzzed-about article in this month's Joint Force Quarterly reveals, notes Shauna Miller in The Atlantic. Looking at more than five decades of the American military's own delving into the issue:

The DoD has funded studies on the impact of gay servicemembers as far back as 1957, when the Navy's Crittenden Report found "no factual data" to support the idea that they posed a greater security risk than heterosexual personnel. Straight officers boasting secrets due to "feelings of inadequacy" were a realer threat, it found. Despite these findings, the report recommended no changes to dismissal policies, for a reason that would define the department's stance on open service into the 21st century: "The service should not move ahead of civilian society nor attempt to set substantially different standards in attitude or action with respect to homosexual offenders."

In 1988, the Defense Personnel Security Research Center — a DoD agency — conducted its own study on gay soldiers to determine whether their service under current policies created security risks, for instance in terms of blackmail. It also discussed, based on the military and wider social data available, whether the military's policies were sustainable. The study returned again and again to the facts of conduct: "Studies of homosexual veterans make clear that having a same gender or an opposite-gender orientation is unrelated to job performance in the same way as is being left or right-handed."

[...] The [Government Accountability Office] report itself turned a harsh light on the DoD. It found that existing policy was "based solely upon concerns about homosexuality itself," and criticized the department for not conducting hard research to support its practices. "In addition," the report said, "professional psychiatric, psychological, sociological associations and other experts familiar with the research conducted on homosexuality in general disagree with the basic rationale behind DoD's policy."

The latest data Prakash cites comes from a 1993 RAND Corp. study commissioned under President Clinton to determine a "practical" strategy on gays in the military. It pulled together the broadest range of data, including opinion of active-duty officers and attitudes of foreign militaries with openly gay servicemembers. Its straightforward conclusion supported the previous 40 years of findings: Policy should set equal expectations of conduct for all servicemembers, and "emphasis should be placed on behavior … not on teaching tolerance or sensitivity."

And it's not like there wasn't (racial) history to go on:

The [Defense Personnel Security Research Center] study also owned the lessons of racial integration: "The intensity of prejudice against homosexuals may be of the same order as the prejudice against blacks in 1948, when the military was ordered to integrate," it found. "The order to integrate blacks was first met with stout resistance by traditionalists in the military establishment. Dire consequences were predicted for maintaining discipline, building group morale, and achieving military organizational goals. None of these predictions of doom has come true."

The Pentagon rejected a draft of the report and its follow-up, claiming it exceeded its mandate. Excerpts from the unpublished studies were released in a 1992 General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) 10-year report on the Pentagon's policies toward gay servicemembers as Congress debated the guidelines that would become DADT.

We'd just love to hear how much more "research" and "studying" and "planning" the Defense Department still needs now that everything has been laid out, explicitly clear, for all to see. Because rest assured, it's coming.

Queerty

What Were Hollywood's A-Gay Activists Doing All Together? Raising Cash For Maine

On the one-year anniversary of meeting to organize a "No On 8" fundraiser at grocery billionaire, Clinton friend, and skeeve Ron Burkle's home, Perry Vs. Schwarzenegger spearheaders and Hollywood A-gays Chad Griffin and Bruce Cohen were holding a similar sort of fundraiser on Tuesday: one for Maine's "No On 1" effort.

Tuesday's private affair raised $50k, and all your favorite activist homos were there: Mark Walsh (Hillary Clinton's campaign primary gay), Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo (a pair of Perry plaintiffs in Ted Olson and David Boies' lawsuit), Fred Karger (Californians Against Hate), Geoff Kors and Marc Solomon (Equality California), Rick Jacobs (Courage Campaign, pictured chatting with Griffin), Allan Hergott (entertainment lawyer), Skip Paul (video game and new media exec), Mary McCormack (actress), and Wendy Greuel (Los Angeles City Controller).

Ah, Hollywood, always having their hands in everything.

Queerty

Michael Bloomberg's 1-Word Answer on Obama's Gay Rights Record

Obama Picks Sharon Lubinski to Be America's First Out Gay U.S. Marshal

Yesterday the White House announced it wants Sharon Lubinski, Minneapolis’ current assistant police chief and 30-year veteran, to be the U.S. Marshal for the District of Minnesota. (What do U.S. Marshals do, you ask? Protect America's district court system.) No offense to Lubinski, who's probably well deserving of the gig, but Obama probably wants a another hug from the gays for this one. First, the Senate has to hug it out and confirm her.
Queerty

HRC Just Granted Obama an Absolutely Horrific 7-Year Pass on Gay Rights

If there was any doubt the Human Rights Campaign was colluding with Democrats and the White House to give Barack Obama a pass on your civil rights, confirmation arrived yesterday, when the organization told its "millions" of members not to judge the president today, but wait until January 19, 2017. Yes, more than seven years from now.

The stupidity of the message —

But what has he [Obama] done?

I've written that we have actually covered a good deal of ground so far. But I'm not going to trot out those advances right now because I have something more relevant to say: It's not January 19, 2017.

That matters for two reasons: first, the accomplishments that we've seen thus far are not the Obama Administration's record. They are the Administration's record so far….

I am sure of this: on January 19, 2017, I will look back on the President's address to my community as an affirmation of his pledge to be our ally. I will remember it as the day when we all stood together and committed to finish what Senator Kennedy called our unfinished business. And I am sure of this: on January 19, 2017, I will also look back on many other victories that President Barack Obama made possible.

— should be self-evident. (The full message is on the next page.) That note, from HRC's Joe Solmonese, effectively lets Obama off the hook for your LGBT rights until the last day of his (not definite) second term. Yes, Solmonese is saying we will judge Obama's legacy on that date. But you know who can't wait for 2017 for Obama to come around? The same people who supposedly aren't facing "immediate threats" to their civil rights: American soldiers, parents who yearn to adopt, couples who are not attached under the law, employees who can be fired at a moment's notice because they are queer.

It's preposterous that an organization charged with defending and demanding the rights of LGBT Americans — and already facing allegations of telling Obama to give preference to some gay rights legislation while ignoring others — just told the entire world that the gay community can wait until Obama is moving out of the White House to expect our rights. The ramifications of HRC's message are dire; the media and other gay organizations around the world take cues from this organization, and if this is the agenda they are pushing, we worry it'll reverberate into a message the "gay community" is behind.

It is not.

HRC may be comfortable "looking back" at some point in the future, but that's not good enough for millions of us who don't have seven years to putz around and, fingers crossed, expect a man to come to our aid. We certainly share Solmonese's hope: That when Obama is done as commander-in-chief, we'll wave goodbye to a man who helped enact the most progressive slate of gay rights legislation in this country's history. But we don't expect too much from a guy who doesn't (publicly) think we're entitled to the M-word.

We're not in the business of building Obama's legacy. We're in the business of making sure we're all treated like any other America. We're not quite sure where HRC's mission falls.

Maybe the protests arranged for tonight's HRC dinner shouldn't be aimed at the president, but at America's "largest" Gay Inc. organization.

UPDATE: Joe sends this update, clarifying:

I’ve seen some reactions to my weekly message, that I gave the President a free pass not to fulfill his campaign promises until 2017.

Here’s something from what I wrote that the authors didn’t include in their pieces: “I predict great things coming out of our work with this President, but that does not mean that I am satisfied today. Our community cannot be satisfied so long as DOMA is on the books and an inclusive ENDA is not.“ I am not satisfied.

HRC is not satisfied.

Our community is not satisfied and that’s why thousands of LGBT people and our allies are in Washington this weekend to demand more.

That’s our position. Stopping here would mean losing. But stopping here is not what we intend to do.

We are pushing for much more. It is our job to dog them, but it is also our job to make sure that success is possible. As I wrote, “To do the work, we have to work with our supporters in Congress and with the Administration.

Whatever you think of the Administration’s first nine months, you don’t pass laws by sitting out. You pass laws by sitting at the table.” Do I believe we’ll have a good track record by 2017? Yes. But the President can’t deliver on his promises alone. It will take all of us working together.

Queerty