COLUMBIA, S.C. — The Columbia City Council again delayed a vote on the future of an ordinance banning professionals from practicing conversion therapy, which attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Conservative state leaders want Columbia to repeal the ban on conversion therapy within the city limits passed in 2021, and are threatening legal action and millions of state dollars if they don’t get their way.

The city passed the ban in 2021 after LGBTQ+ members of the public asked for the protection. The ordinance has never once been used, but this year it became a “political football” with two likely candidates for governor leading the charge against the local policy.

At the same time, there have also been claims that members of Columbia City Council themselves were in favor of the state threatening the $3.7 million, with one state lawmaker telling reporters that members of the council “asked for our help.”

The issue is now deeply entangled with the city’s budget, which state law requires to be finalized by the end of June, said Columbia City Manager Teresa Wilson. A proviso attached to the state budget would penalize any city with a ban on conversion therapy, and Columbia could lose nearly $4 million in state funds if it keeps the ban.

“Simply put, $3.7 million … is a gaping hole in the general fund of the city if we don’t have it,” Wilson, the city manager, said at the council meeting Tuesday. After the city council deferred its vote on the ban, Wilson said she would go forward with recommending that the city find that nearly $4 million elsewhere, largely from the city’s hospitality tax fund.

That will also impact the city’s ability to support certain nonprofits, Wilson said, which receive grants from the city through the hospitality fund for events and other efforts throughout the year.

For LGBTQ+ rights advocates, the issue also bleeds into the bigger picture of what kind of place Columbia should be — and how inviting it is, or isn’t. And how willing the city is to stand against political pressure that more than one person Tuesday equated to extortion.

“I am asking you to stand up for what’s right in the face of an oppressive government” said Dylan Gunnels, president of SC Pride. “In 2021 I was proud of my city. I just want to keep being proud of my city.”

State threats

Rickenmann several times Tuesday said that the ordinance never provided real protection against abuse because it includes no criminal penalties and does not cover religious organizations, which are still able to practice conversion therapy.

“We voted on an ordinance (in 2021) that has no teeth,” Rickenmann said. “But I can’t have any part of our community feeling vulnerable. So what do we do?”

In April, Attorney General Alan Wilson threatened the city with legal action if it kept the ordinance, saying the policy violates state law and the First Amendment. At the same time, conservative state lawmaker Josh Kimbrell, R-Spartanburg, added a clause to the state budget that would cost Columbia roughly $3.7 million if it keeps the conversion therapy policy. The clause, called a proviso, specifically withholds money from municipalities with bans on conversion therapy. Columbia’s ban is the only one in the state.

Both Wilson and Kimbrell are likely Republican candidates for governor in 2026.

LGBTQ+ rights groups, residents and others have spoken out against Wilson’s demand and have implored the city to stand against the attorney general. More than one person who testified at Tuesday’s meeting told the council to prioritize its values over the budget.

The city council has heard testimony from people who were traumatized after undergoing conversion therapy, from licensed mental health providers who attest it is no “therapy” at all, from lawyers who argue against Wilson’s legal opinion on the matter, and from parents, business owners and other community leaders who have urged the council to do what is “right and decent.”

A handful of people testified that they wanted the city to repeal the ban, several because they say they want to protect the city’s budget. But the overwhelming majority of people who have spoken before the council have been opposed to repealing the ban.

Lawmakers weigh in

The council’s second deferment of the vote comes after claims made last week that some in city council may have quietly been supportive of the budget proviso.

State lawmaker Bruce Bannister last week told reporters, “The city council members from Columbia were doing a very good job keeping us up to speed on avoiding a lawsuit and trying to resolve some stuff on a local level, and asked for our help.”

He would not say who from the city council reached out to conference committee members about the proviso.

“They were supportive of us adopting the proviso and basically saying, ‘You can’t do something that probably is not constitutional, and they were going to lose a lawsuit over and that this would encourage their members to think a little harder about it.’”

Rickenmann addressed that accusation in the meeting Tuesday, saying, “We didn’t start this,” and that no one on the city council had called lawmakers to advocate for keeping the budget proviso.

State Rep. Seth Rose, D-Richland, a former Richland County Council member, spoke to reporters Tuesday morning ahead of the city council vote, along with the ACLU and others. He said he “would hope” that no elected official would actively ask for state-level restrictions to affect local laws.

“If you want to do away with an ordinance that has been publicly put in place by local elected officials, then you should do so in a public setting, not behind the curtain,” Rose said. “To do it in a cowardly way, in the shadows, out of public view, I think is absolutely wrong and the people of Columbia deserve better.”

Rose also took issue with the attempt to set policy through the budget, an effort he called “fundamentally unfair,” adding that it “usurps” the existing state legislative process.

Columbia passed its ordinance banning conversion therapy for minors on a 4-3 vote in June 2021, with Rickenmann and former Mayor Steve Benjamin both voting against it at the time. The other no vote was Councilman Rev. Ed McDowell, who along with Rickenmann has remained on the council since that vote.

Of the four council members who voted in favor of the conversion therapy ban in 2021, just Will Brennan is still on the council.

Conversion therapy is a controversial counseling practice meant to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It’s opposed by prominent medical and psychology organizations across the globe, but some faith organizations have supported the practice, and several argued against Columbia’s ban in 2021.

Prominent organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics oppose conversion therapy and say it is ineffective and dangerous.

It is unclear if or when the council will again take up the conversion therapy ordinance. The Attorney General’s Office had previously given the city until July 7 to take action on the ban.

_____

©2025 The State. Visit thestate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.