Dr. Li-ann Thio, an anti-gay professor from the National University of Singapore, has decided not to accept an invitation to teach at NYU this fall, citing lack of enrollment in her classes and a hostile atmosphere. Many among the faculty and student body expressed outrage with the invitation over anti-gay remarks made by Dr. Thio while serving in the Singapore Parliament in 2007. Dean Richard L. Revesz, Law Dean at NYU, released a statement in response to Dr. Thio’s withdrawal.

I am writing to let you know that Professor Li-ann Thio informed me today that she is canceling her Fall visit to NYU Law School as a Global Visiting Professor as a result of the controversy surrounding her views regarding homosexuality and gay rights. She explained that she was disappointed by what she called the atmosphere of hostility by some members of our community towards her views and by the low enrollments in her classes. The Law School will therefore cancel the course on Human Rights in Asia and the seminar on Constitutionalism in Asia, which she had been scheduled to teach.

…

In the last few weeks, a number of members of our community wrote to Professor Thio indicating their objection to her appointment as a visiting professor. She considers some of these messages to be offensive. In turn, she replied to them in a manner that many member of our community—myself included—consider offensive and hurtful. These exchanges have been circulated on various blogs. Members of our community have questioned whether Professor Thio’s statements create an unwelcoming atmosphere, one in which students in her classes would have been unable to participate effectively in the learning experience. Determination of where that point is on the continuum of free speech is a difficult, case-by-case judgment based upon context, history of the relationship, and many other factors. But it would be an extraordinary measure, almost never taken by universities in the United States, to cancel a course on the basis of e-mail exchanges between a faculty member and members of the student body. To do so would eviscerate the concept of academic freedom and chill student-faculty debate.

The letter in full attempts to absolve the NYU of any responsibility, citing the invitation was extended under  standard academic practices, while at the same time remaining  sympathetic to those who were offended by her views. It’s a difficult to line to straddle, and it’s unclear how the faculty, student body and community will receive it.

Over 20 gay and straight kissers rallied near a Mormon temple in San Diego late yesterday, showing their support for a Utah gay couple who were cited and detained for trespassing after kissing on LDS property. From the Fox affiliate in San Diego:

This is the third kiss-in in as many weeks, and appears to have inspired a movement which is now going national, with kiss-ins tentatively planned in the following cities:

Austin, TX Boston, MA Dallas, TX Delano, CA Houston, TX Irvine, CA Memphis, N	New York, NY Philadelphia, PA Portland, OR Salt Lake City, UT San Antonio, TX San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA

The movement is being spearheaded by bloggers David Badash and David Mailloux.

Senator Claire McCaskill suggested yesterday if a concealed weapons law she had voted against had actually passed, it could have set a precedent for forcing states, like her home state of Missouri, to recognize another state’s gay marriage laws.

Sen. McCaskill says she was not against letting people carry concealed weapons. But she is against requiring one state to accept another state’s laws that might differ from its own. She says it would be a foot in the door that could allow Vermont’s laws on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri, which has a constitutional provision against gay marriage.

McCaskill says many of the supporters of the proposal are advocates for states’ rights, but they want to override states’ rights on carrying concealed weapons.

McCaskill audio available here:

[audio:http://www.missourinet.com/podcast/feed/a6afff9d-c09f-1e1c-6be13276f8998390/article/a39175b5-5056-b82a-37fd2022b5878c0c/audio/a451587c-5056-b82a-37678da2082718e8/macgun.mp3]

Senator McCaskill has since attempted to clarify her position via email.
(via Pam’s House Blend)

“In talking about my recent vote against the gun provision offered in the Senate, I wasn’t clear when I stated that my vote against that provision was because it came down to a states’ rights. I was expressing my frustration in that some who argue that states shouldn’t respect the laws, certificates, or permits from other states when it’s convenient, like with gay marriage, but then argue that they should when it’s convenient on another issue, like gun rights. They can’t have it both ways,” McCaskill said.

While it is true that Republicans are demonstrating hypocrisy with regards to state’s rights on this issue, based on McCaskill’s original statement, it really sounds like she thinks DOMA is a “good” idea.

PROMO, The Missouri LGBT advocacy group has responded to McCaskill’s comments today:

In a statement defending her opposition to this bill, she [McCaskill] stated: “This is a foot in the door that would require, for example, the laws in Vermont on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri.”

This is a problem. A state’s rights argument is valid in this situation, however it is inconceivable that an ally can support Hate Crimes legislation- which recognizes the LGBT community is a target of increased abuse, intolerance and aggressive force- but uses a touchstone issue for the community as a shield rather than stand alone on an anti-gun sentiment.

In a time when we have seen incredible strides on a state by state basis, we have turned a corner and will not tolerate being used as a shield. Please reach out to Sen. McCaskill’s office and let her know while she is an ally, you won’t tolerate being used as a shield. The numbers listed are below for local and DC offices.

Gay Republicans have also expressed particular outrage over McCaskill’s comments, an outrage likely fueled more by the fact that McCaskill is a Democrat and their strong support of the concealed weapons law, than anything about gay marriage.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has withdrawn a proposed amendment that would have placed an 18-month moratorium on discharges under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. She simply didn’t have enough votes.

Matt Canter, a Gillibrand spokesperson, told the Blade on Wednesday that the senator determined there weren’t 60 votes available for a vote of cloture on the amendment.

“She was working for about a week to assess support among her colleagues for the measure,” he said. “It does not appear that we’re going to have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. So she’s not going to pursue the moratorium amendment at this time.”

Canter said Gillibrand is working with senators “to continue to highlight the issue and move forward on the issue.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is slated to introduce a bill for full repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the Senate. In the House, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) took over as lead sponsor of repeal legislation earlier this month.

Canter said Gillibrand will continue to back Kennedy and Murphy’s efforts to build support for repeal legislation.

While unfortunate, the withdrawal is not completely surprising. The proposed amendment was last minute, and comes at a time when the Senate has been focused on healthcare reform, the DoD authorization bill, and mermaids. Seriously, it had better not been the last one.