Conservative think-tank, The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, has received extensive media coverage this election season over its controversial mandate for leadership, Project 2025.
The foundation has been proposing policies since 1981, as instructions for a conservative administration to strengthen their power and have their ideals represented in government.
Despite not being directly linked to the presidency, these mandates have played a critical part in conservative policy over the past 40 years, with Ronald Reagan heeding to the 1981 mandate attempting to adopt two-thirds of the foundation’s proposals.
Similarly, the Trump administration also paid very close attention to the group’s policy recommendations, adopting close to 64% of the policies suggested in the Heritage Foundation’s 2015 mandate for leadership.
In its most recent mandate, the foundation has suggested policies that are the most conservative they have ever been, some of which are blatantly unconstitutional. The foundation’s suggestions for the Department of Health and Human Services found in section three of their mandate, are some of the most egregious.
This chapter is authored by Roger Servino, who served under President Trump as Director of the Office of Civil Rights within DHHS. Apart from the controversial policies on healthcare, the chapter’s most alarming goal is undermining the Respect for Marriage Act.
The chapter shares the goals and language of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. According to them, the institution of heterosexual marriage is under attack by the federal and state governments, and to protect the American nuclear family, policies must be enacted to ensure its defense.
In 1996, DOMA received overwhelming bipartisan support in both the house and senate, including then senator, Joe Biden. The act proclaimed that states did not have to recognize marriages legally performed in other states if same-sex marriage was illegal in their state. It also defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Apart from moral objections, the act was immediately called into question for violating the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and was subject to many lawsuits in the following few years.
The first successful suit was United States v. Windsor in 2013, in which the court found that the federal government could not deny the recognition of same-sex marriages. This affected federal policies such as estate taxing, benefits and citizenship through marriage.
Although this was a landmark case in proving DOMA unconstitutional, Windsor only partially overturned the act. It stated that the federal government’s definition of marriage was in violation of the constitution, but failed to overturn the section giving the states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
It would not be until Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), that DOMA would be completely repealed, requiring all 50 states to permit and recognize same-sex marriages.
DOMA was a legal nightmare from the beginning of its enactment and serves as proof that attempts to put forward a policy that treats married same-sex couples differently than married opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional.
It is also important to note the majority of its architects and supporters have since reversed their positions on it.
Former President Clinton, who signed it into law, has disavowed the act. The original drafter of DOMA, Republican Bob Barr, supported the first version of the Respect for Marriage Act in 2009. This act would eventually be signed into law by President Biden in 2022, officially overturning DOMA by codifying same-sex marriage into law.
With it officially codified into law, Project 2025 has no hope of bringing back DOMA, but it does seek to undermine the Respect for Marriage Act through alternative means. It calls to prioritize grants for organizations that strictly define marriage as between a man and a woman.
This would include organizations such as adoption which were specifically mentioned by Project 2025. They want to provide incentives for adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples.
The rise in far-right rhetoric pushed in this election cycle is extremely dangerous. The Heritage Foundation must not continue down this path in pushing extreme and unconstitutional policies in its mandates.
If they are to continue operating they must do so while respecting our constitutional ideals that guarantee each American their inalienable rights.
This story was written by John O’Shea. He can be reached at [email protected].
