tazz3069

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell bluntly warned Republican senators in a private meeting not to sign on to a bill from Sen. Josh Hawley aimed at limiting corporate money bankrolling high-powered outside groups, telling them that many of them won their seats thanks to the powerful super PAC the Kentucky Republican has long controlled.

According to multiple sources familiar with the Tuesday lunch meeting, McConnell warned GOP senators that they could face “incoming” from the “center-right” if they signed onto Hawley’s bill. He also read off a list of Senators who won their races amid heavy financial support from the Senate Leadership Fund, an outside group tied to the GOP leader that spends big on TV ads in battleground Senate races. On that list of senators: Hawley himself, according to sources familiar with the matter.

McConnell has long been a chief opponent of tighter campaign finance restrictions. But there’s also no love lost between McConnell and Hawley, who has long criticized the GOP leader and has repeatedly called for new leadership atop their conference. Just on Tuesday, Hawley told CNN that it was “mistake” for McConnell to be “standing with” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, in their push to tie Ukraine aid to an Israel funding package.

Hawley’s new bill, called the Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act, is aimed at reversing the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that loosened campaign finance laws – an effort that aligns the conservative Missouri Republican with many Democrats. Hawley’s bill would ban publicly traded corporations from making independent expenditures and political advertisements – and ban those publicly traded companies from giving money to super PACs.

In an interview, Hawley defended his bill and said that corporate influence should be limited in elections.

“I think that’s wrong,” Hawley told CNN. “I think it’s wrong as an original matter. I think it’s warping our politics, and I see no reason for conservatives to defend it. It’s wrong as a matter of the original meaning of the Constitution. It is bad for our elections. It’s bad for our voters. And I just think on principle, we ought to be concerned.”

According to a list of Senators obtained by CNN, McConnell singled out a number of lawmakers who benefited from his outside group over the last three cycles: Mike Braun of Indiana, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Susan Collins of Maine, Steve Daines of Montana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Katie Britt of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Ted Budd of North Carolina, JD Vance of Ohio and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

In 2018, Hawley benefited from more than $20 million from McConnell’s group.

McConnell’s office declined to comment.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Aaron Sibarium

Published: Jun 12, 2024

Congressional Republicans introduced a bill on Wednesday that would eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion positions in the federal government and bar federal contractors from requiring DEI statements and training sessions.

The Dismantle DEI Act, introduced by Sen. J.D. Vance (R., Ohio) and Rep. Michael Cloud (R., Texas), would also bar federal grants from going to diversity initiatives, cutting off a key source of support for DEI programs in science and medicine. Other provisions would prevent accreditation agencies from requiring DEI in schools and bar national securities associations, like NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange, from instituting diversity requirements for corporate boards.

"The DEI agenda is a destructive ideology that breeds hatred and racial division," Vance told the Washington Free Beacon. "It has no place in our federal government or anywhere else in our society."

The bill is the most comprehensive legislative effort yet to excise DEI initiatives from the federal government and regulated entities. It offers a preview of how a Republican-controlled government, led by former president Donald Trump, could crack down on the controversial diversity programs that have exploded since 2020, fueled in part by President Joe Biden’s executive orders mandating a "whole-of-government" approach to  "racial equity."

From NASA and the National Science Foundation to the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S Army, all federal agencies require some form of diversity training. Mandatory workshops have drilled tax collectors on "cultural inclusion," military commanders on male pregnancy, and nuclear engineers on the "roots of white male culture," which—according to a training for Sandia National Laboratories, the Energy Department offshoot that designs America’s nuclear arsenal—include a "can-do attitude" and "hard work."

The Sandia training, conducted in 2019 by a group called "White Men As Full Diversity Partners," instructed nuclear weapons engineers to write "a short message" to "white women" and "people of color" about what they’d learned, according to screenshots of the training obtained by the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher Rufo.

The bill would ban these trainings and close the government DEI offices that conduct them. It would also prevent personnel laid off by those closures from being transferred or reassigned—a move meant to stop diversity initiatives from continuing under another name.

The prohibitions, which cover outside DEI consultants as well as government officials, would be enforced via a private right of action and could save the government billions of dollars. In 2023, the Biden administration spent over $16 million on diversity training for government employees alone. It requested an additional $83 million that year for DEI programs at the State Department and $9.2 million for the Office of Personnel Management’s Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility—one of the many bureaucracies the bill would eliminate.

A large chunk of savings would come from axing DEI grants made through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which has a near monopoly on science funding in the United States. The agency hosts an entire webpage for "diversity related" grant opportunities—including several that prioritize applicants from "diverse backgrounds"—and has set aside billions of dollars for "minority institutions" and researchers with a "commitment to promoting diversity." All of those programs would be on the chopping block should Vance and Cloud’s bill pass.

Cosponsored by Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.), Rick Scott (R., Fla.), Kevin Cramer (R., N.D.), Bill Cassidy (R., La.), and Eric Schmitt (R., Mo.) in the Senate, the Dismantle DEI Act has drawn support from prominent conservative advocacy groups, including Heritage Action and the Claremont Institute. At a time of ideological fracture on the right—debates about foreign aid and the proper role of government bitterly divided Trump’s primary challengers, for example, both in 2016 and 2024—Wednesday’s bill aims to provide a rallying cry most Republicans can get behind: DEI needs to die.

"It’s absurd to fund these divisive policies, especially using Americans' tax dollars," Cloud told the Free Beacon. "And it’s time for Congress to put an end to them once and for all."

The bill has the potential to free millions of Americans—both in government and the private sector—from the sort of divisive diversity trainings that have become an anti-woke bête noire. Its most consequential provisions might be those governing federal contractors, which employ up to a fifth of the American workforce and include companies like Pfizer, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, and Verizon.

Each firm runs a suite of DEI programs, from race-based fellowships and "resource groups" to mandatory workshops, that have drawn public outcry and in some cases sparked legal challenges. By targeting these contractors, the bill could purge DEI from large swaths of the U.S. economy without directly outlawing the practice in private institutions.

Targeting accreditors, meanwhile, could remove a key driver of DEI programs in professional schools. The American Bar Association and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredit all law and medical schools in the United States and derive much of their power from the U.S. Department of Education, have both made DEI material—including course content on "anti-racism"—a requirement for accreditation, over the objections of some of their members.

Those mandates have spurred a handful of law schools to require entire classes on critical race theory. The transformation has been even more acute at medical schools, which, per accreditation guidelines released in 2022, should teach students to identify "systems of power, privilege, and oppression."

Yale Medical School now requires residents to take a mandatory course on "advocacy" and "health justice," for example. And at the University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine, students must complete a "health equity" course that promotes police abolition, describes weight loss as a "hopeless endeavor," and states that "biomedical knowledge" is "just one way" of understanding "health and the world."

While the bill wouldn’t outlaw these lessons directly, it would prevent accreditors recognized by the Education Department from mandating them. Such agencies, whose seal of approval is a prerequisite for federal funds, would need to certify that their accreditation standards do not "require, encourage, or coerce any institution of higher education to engage in prohibited" DEI practices, according to the text of the bill. They would also need to certify that they do not "assess the commitment of an institution of higher education to any ideology, belief, or viewpoint" as part of the accreditation process.

Other, more technical provisions would eliminate diversity quotas at federal agencies and end a racially targeted grant program in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Unlike past GOP efforts to limit DEI, which have focused on the content of diversity trainings and the use of explicit racial preferences, the bill introduced Wednesday would also ax requirements related to data collection. It repeals a law that forces the armed services to keep tabs on the racial breakdown of officers, for example, as well as a law that requires intelligence officials to collect data on the "diversity and inclusion efforts" of their agencies.

Though officials could still collect the data if they so choose, the bill would mark a small step toward colorblindness in a country where racial record-keeping—required by many federal agencies—has long been the norm.

"DEI destroys competence while making Americans into enemies," said Arthur Milikh, the director of the Claremont Institute Center for the American Way of Life, one of the conservative groups supporting the bill. "This ideology must be fought, and its offices removed."

==

I don't care who raised it. If the Dems raised it, I'd support it. DEI is absolute poison.

[mongowheelie]

'Bulls---': GOP senators rebuke Tucker Carlson for downplaying Jan. 6 as 'mostly peaceful'

[buttercupkg66]

ND Sen. Kevin Cramer’s son, 43, pleads guilty in high-speed car chase that killed sheriff’s deputy

[bbcviral]

North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota says he's seeking reelection http://dlvr.it/T36Pm3

[developerdesks]

North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer's son faces new charges in crash that killed sheriff's deputy

U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer’s 42-year-old son is facing additional charges in connection with the pursuit and crash that killed a North Dakota sheriff’s deputy this month. Ian Cramer, who is in jail, is now also accused of theft, criminal mischief and reckless endangerment for allegedly taking a family vehicle and driving through a closed garage door of a Bismarck hospital’s ambulance bay. The new…

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

CLARIFICATION: Paul’s office says that under his spending plan, Social Security will be exempt from cuts.

Conservative Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will force the Senate to vote this week on cutting total federal spending by 5% in each of the next two years, a proposal that could put popular programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act under scrutiny. Paul told reporters Tuesday that he would insist on a vote on his amendment in exchange for yielding back time on the Senate floor and giving leaders a chance to pass the debt-limit bill before the nation faces default next week.

Paul’s proposal, which he is calling a “conservative alternative” to the deal negotiated by President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), poses an uncomfortable vote for Senate Republicans, one which it divides their conference.

A “no” vote opens GOP Senators to criticism from conservatives who say that policymakers who exempt mandatory spending programs from reform are not serious about balancing the budget.

A “yes” vote risks alienating seniors who are worried about seeing their Medicare benefits cut or veterans who now receive more federal aid through mandatory spending through the PACT Act, which Congress passed last year.

A press release issued by Paul’s office Tuesday didn’t mention any exception for Social Security, and Paul while speaking with reporters that day also did not say Social Security would be exempted. After an initial version of this story was published, a spokesperson for Paul clarified that Social Security would be exempted.

“He was referring to on-budget spending, which excludes Social Security. His Penny Plan has never touched Social Security and it’s not allowed under the budget rules,” said Kelsey Cooper, referring to a past budget resolution sponsored by Paul to cut spending. “His Penny Plan has also never specified cuts to Medicare or any other program — it only gives topline numbers.”

When he spoke with reporters on Tuesday, Paul said his plan didn’t specify what programs Congress should cut to balance the budget in five years but that it would pressure lawmakers to look at a range of entitlement programs to achieve $545 billion in cuts over two years.

Asked whether he would reach his target of an annual 5% annual cut to all federal spending “by going through entitlements,” Paul responded: “We get there by putting a top line number of what it would take for the entire budget.”

“The committees would have to determine where the cuts would be. So there still would be for room for people to disagree and debate over exactly where they want the cuts but there would be an absolute topline number for the entire budget that over the next two years would be on the way to balance in five years,” he explained.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and other health care programs account for nearly 50% of all spending. As a result, it is very difficult to balance the budget without touching such programs. The Postal Service would also be exempt from his plan because along with Social Security it is classified as “off budget” spending, according to a Senate GOP aide.

Republicans have spent months running away from the accusation President Biden leveled at his “State of the Union” address that they want to cut Medicare.

If Paul were able to force a vote on his measure, they would find themselves having to vote on deep, across-the-board funding cuts that would likely affect a range of popular mandatory spending programs that are largely excluded from discussions about fiscal reform.

McCarthy took Social Security and Medicare cuts off the table early in the year. Some conservatives think that was a mistake. Paul says that under his proposal, “there would be an absolute top-line number for the entire budget that over the next two years would be on its way to balance in five years.”

He says the McCarthy-Biden plan, which was approved in a bipartisan vote by the House on Wednesday night, falls short of making a meaningful dent in the federal deficit because “they’re only really looking at non-military discretionary” spending, which accounts for only 17% of the federal budget. He argued that mandatory spending programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest drivers of the debt. “Mandatory spending is enormous. It’s over half of the spending every year; it’s going up at 5% a year,” Paul said. “This specular deal that we’ve gotten tries to slow down spending on nonmilitary discretionary [spending,] so it does nothing,” he added with a dose of sarcasm.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), another outspoken critic of the Biden-McCarthy deal, says mandatory spending programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid do “have to be considered” as part of any meaningful deficit reduction deal. Lee said a 5%, across-the-board reduction in federal spending will be criticized as “abrupt” or “draconian,” but he argues the consequences of letting the debt continue to grow by a couple trillion dollars every year are scary.

“If you want to talk at draconian and abrupt, look at what happens the moment our borrowing costs because of our profligate spending practices and because of interest rates and other factors … returns to the historical average of 5%,” he said.

“Our annual interest payments will very quickly go up well over a trillion dollars a year,” he warned. “It could easily exceed … our entire defense budget, and within a few years, we could see our total interest on debt outlays even coming to exceed our entire discretionary spending outlays.”

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), who will also vote against the debt limit bill, said federal spending as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product has gone into “the stratosphere.”

“You got to make those hard decisions like any real leader would do,” he said.

He says Social Security and Medicare, which he called “the drivers” of the debt, should be on the negotiating table “in terms of saving it.”

“Sooner or later, the programs that drive the structural deficits” such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid “will have to be looked at, and everybody knows that here,” Braun said.

Paul’s proposal is expected to pick up only around 20 votes, because many Senate Republicans don’t want to their favorite programs, in particular defense spending, to face steep cuts.

Biden and Senate Democrats have hammered the GOP relentlessly over the 12 Point Plan to Save America, which Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced last year and calls for a sunset of all federal legislation after a period of five years. Scott said he never intended to sunset Medicare or Social Security, but that didn’t stop Democrats from using the plan as a bludgeon. Scott amended it earlier this year to create specific exceptions for Social Security, Medicare, national security and veterans benefits.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who supports the debt limit deal, said Paul and other conservatives are correct that “you can’t balance the budget solely on discretionary spending.”

“I don’t see how, in the context of raising the debt ceiling, that you could have gotten anything more than Kevin McCarthy got,” Cramer said.

But he said McCarthy probably took Social Security and Medicare off the table too early in the debate. Asked if that was a mistake, Cramer said, “yeah, I think it was.” But he argued it might have been the right political move.

“You have this crazy political game going on where everybody out-Social Security the other people instead of being straight up and honest with the American public and say, ‘We won’t do any harm to anybody’s existing Social Security, and we’re going to have a forward-leaning solution,’” he said.

Cramer acknowledged Congress “missed the opportunity, so to speak” to make big fiscal reforms to Social Security and Medicare but he said the “threat of default is so big” that it limited how bold Republicans could be in making demands.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has said in the past that split party control of government provides a good opportunity to enact big, controversial reform, acknowledged Wednesday it’s been very tough to make any headway on Social Security or Medicare reforms.

“It’s been challenging over the years to get both sides to look at the very large picture,” McConnell told reporters.

But he praised the McCarthy-Biden deal for cutting spending, after Congress increased it by more than $2.7 trillion through two partisan reconciliation bills in 2021 and 2022, under Democratic control of Congress.

“At least we’re going in a different direction,” he said.

[truck-fump]

Sen. Kevin Cramer endorses <b>Trump</b> for president hours after Burgum drops out - InForum

New Post has been published on https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=https://www.inforum.com/news/north-dakota/sen-kevin-cramer-endorses-trump-for-president-hours-after-burgum-drops-out&ct=ga&cd=CAIyGjUzM2UwMTY5ZmFhZTIwMGQ6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AOvVaw0C2zukliLLCIV2j7sqpyiA

Sen. Kevin Cramer endorses Trump for president hours after Burgum drops out - InForum

The U.S. senator had previously endorsed North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum for president, and said he was “waiting” to endorse Trump “out of respect …

[dertaglichedan]

'Crisis averted' - now we go after the rich: Biden threatens another war on 'tax cheats' because U.S. needs MORE revenue - and claims 'extreme' Republicans wanted country to default on $31T debt limit deal victory lap

The U.S. Senate passed legislation late Thursday night to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, and the bill is now headed to President Joe Biden’s desk.

The legislation passed with 17 Republicans joining 46 Democrats to suspend the debt ceiling until Jan. 2025. Five Democrats broke with their party. Ahead of the June 5 deadline, the federal government will now avoid a default on its debt. (RELATED: Here Are The Senators Who Voted Against Bill To Raise Debt Ceiling)

Here Are The 17 Republicans Who Voted For Unlimited Spending:  

Arkansas Sen. John Boozman

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito

Maine Sen. Susan Collins

Texas Sen. John Cornyn

North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven

Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski

Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin

Uta Sen. Mitt Romney

South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds

South Dakota Sen. John Thune

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis

Indiana Sen. Todd Young

After passing the legislation, Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who supported the bill, released statements detailing why they voted in favor of the legislation.

[kp777]

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said Sunday that the GOP is “in desperate need” of new leadership, a dismissal of former President Trump, who is running for another White House term in 2024. 

“Donald Trump’s not going to take advice from the party or from me, but I think what will happen is if he’s indicted, that becomes one of the factors [on] whether he wins primaries or not. The other factor is who else is in the race and who may make the best case,” Cramer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” 

Read more.

[mongowheelie]

Republican senator: Mayorkas impeachment effort is 'the dumbest exercise and use of time' - Raw Story

No shit

[newswireml]

'Bulls*#t,' one Republican senator says of Carlson's depiction of Jan. 6#Bullst #Republican #senator #Carlsons #depiction #Jan

Sen. Kevin Cramer, of North Dakota, was also straightforward about Carlson’s falsehoods. “I think that breaking through glass windows and doors to get into the United States Capitol against the borders of police is a crime. I think particularly when you come into the chambers, when you start opening the members’ desks, when you stand up in their balcony—to somehow put that in the same category…

[repostedpoliticalarts]

These are the 34 congressional Republicans who corresponded via text message with Donald Trump’s Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, about plans to overturn the 2020 election:

These individuals should literally be in JAIL. They are all guilty of treason against the American people and should DEFINITELY not STILL BE HOLDING OFFICE!!

Rep. Rick Allen (Georgia)

Rep. Brian Babin (Texas)

Rep. Andy Biggs (Arizona)

Rep. Dan Bishop (North Carolina)

Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)

Rep. Mo Brooks (Alabama)

Rep. Ted Budd (North Carolina)

Rep. Andrew Clyde (Georgia)

Sen. Kevin Cramer (North Dakota)

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)

Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio)

Rep. Tom Emmer (Minnesota)

Rep. Bob Gibbs (Ohio)

Rep. Louie Gohmert (Texas)

Rep. Paul Gosar (Arizona)

Rep. Mark Green (Tennessee)

Rep. Jody Hice (Georgia)

Rep. Richard Hudson (North Carolina)

Rep. Mike Johnson (Louisiana)

Sen. Ron Johnson (Wisconsin)

Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio)

Rep. Fred Keller (Pennsylvania)

Rep. Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania)

Sen. Mike Lee (Utah)

Rep. Billy Long (Missouri)

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (Georgia)

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (Wyoming)

Rep. Barry Moore (Alabama)

Rep. Greg Murphy (North Carolina)

Rep. Ralph Norman (South Carolina)

Sen. David Perdue (Georgia)

Rep. Scott Perry (Pennsylvania)

Rep. Chip Roy (Texas)

Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (Georgia)

[arpov-blog-blog]

Elections have consequences. Gerrymandering that began in 2010, along with voter suppression have given the GOP a built in advantage to control the US House of Representatives. Some GOPer are trying now to avoid muting their chances for a major sweep in 2024 and not repeat the failures of the 2022 cycle by allowing arrogance to blunt their momentum....."Led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican brass is trying to push a massive spending bill through despite conservative bellyaching. Locking in government funding through September would deliver a huge tranche of aid to Ukraine and, they’re betting, also remove an early landmine from McCarthy’s path. McConnell probably has the votes to pass a deal, but angst is growing among McConnell’s members, driving down GOP support.

And while some McCarthy allies acknowledge that a spending deal would ease their to-do list in the new Congress, few House Republicans can be counted on to support it. McCarthy himself is aligning with conservatives who want to see Congress punt, thus denying Democrats a year-end win — while depositing a spending fight on the next speaker’s doorstep.

Summing up the party’s dilemma, Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) surmised: “It’s a very unfortunate place we find ourselves.”

“I’m so disgusted by the fact that we’re here again,” said Cramer, who is undecided and criticized both the deal and delay approaches. “My concern is that a new House, very small majority, new leadership, is going to have to take over, and to have to start from behind? … That concerns me. That could have negative consequences.”

As he fights to become speaker and win over his doubters, McCarthy can afford to take a dim view of a big year-end spending bill while Democrats and Senate Republicans do the heavy lifting. Republicans are predicting — and in some cases, privately hoping — that the outgoing House Democratic majority can pass the legislation on its own.

McConnell needs at least 10 Republicans to avoid a filibuster, a painful task because House GOP leaders are likely to skewer the deal as another big Joe Biden-backed spending bill. And the Kentucky Republican prefers to have a majority of his conference on board, particularly as the Senate GOP holds a special meeting Wednesday that’s sure to include lengthy internal debate over the merits of cutting a bipartisan spending deal.

On the other side of the Capitol, the spending bill can’t be separated from McCarthy’s speaker election on Jan. 3 — and many Senate Republicans think passing it now would only help the House GOP in the future.

Kicking the government funding debate until next year “would require a very delicate balancing act between the House Republican majority and the Senate Democratic majority,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), a McConnell ally. He added that it’s “better not to have that major hurdle that the new speaker, Kevin McCarthy, has to negotiate … it’s too much to ask.”

[reveal-the-news]

Congress avoids rail strike that could have further damaged the economy

Congress avoids rail strike that could have further damaged the economy

(Center Square)- A railroad shutdown that experts say could cost the economy billions was averted in a Senate vote Thursday. The Senate voted 80 to 15 to approve a deal that gives rail workers a 24% raise over the next five years. A second bill that would have added seven days of paid sick leave was rejected. Sen. Kevin Cramer, RN.D., and Sen. Rep. Cynthia Loomis, R-Wyo., urged her colleagues not…

[pashterlengkap]

21 GOP senators tell colleagues to oppose same-sex marriage bill unless it allows discrimination

A group of 21 Republican senators has signed a letter urging their Republican colleagues to support an amendment that would help gut anti-discrimination protections in a bill requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages. Earlier this month, 12 Republican senators voted to advance The Respect for Marriage Act. If the bill goes to a Senate floor vote, those senators would help ensure that it passes the filibuster and gets signed into law. The bill would officially repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law that forbade the federal government from legally recognizing same-sex marriages. In its place, the act would require the federal and state governments to recognize same-sex marriages as long as they occur in states where they are legal. If any state refuses to recognize such marriages, the act says, the spouses can sue. However, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced an amendment that would “ensure that federal bureaucrats do not take discriminatory actions against individuals, organizations, nonprofits, and other entities based on their sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions about marriage by prohibiting the denial or revocation of tax exempt status, licenses, contracts, benefits, etc.” In short, the amendment wants to allow anti-LGBTQ discrimination against queer couples and to restrain government officials from intervening to stop it. In a letter addressed to the 12 Republican senators who supported the bill, 21 of their colleagues wrote, “[We] ask that you oppose cloture on the Respect for Marriage Act unless the Lee amendment is added… The free exercise of religion is absolutely essential to the health of our Republic. We must have the courage to protect it.” The letter neglects to mention that religious people of numerous faiths support the freedom to solemnize and recognize same-sex marriages. We still have time to protect religious liberty. We’re asking our colleagues to support my amendment. pic.twitter.com/y7JXkxNXTZ — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) November 19, 2022 The letter was signed 21 Republican Senators, including Lee, Mike Braun (IN), Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS), John Cornyn (TX), Rand Paul (KY), Marco Rubio (FL), John Thune (SD), Ron Johnson (WI), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Tommy Tuberville (AL), Kevin Cramer (ND), Rick Scott (FL), John Boozman (AR), Roger Marshall (KS), Roger Wicker (MS), Tim Scott (SC), James Risch (ID), Tom Cotton (AR), Lindsay Graham (SC), Josh Hawley (MO), and Ted Cruz (TX). Despite these senator’s worries, a revised version of the bill submitted earlier this month guarantees to uphold all “religious liberty and conscience protections” currently defined by federal law. It states that no individual or group will be forced to “solemnize” same-sex marriages and that the legislation will threaten no individual or group’s tax-exempt status. The bill is expected to receive a vote after the Thanksgiving holiday. http://dlvr.it/SdPCFv