For the second time this month, the Columbia City Council on Tuesday postponed a vote to repeal a conversion therapy ban for LGBTQ-plus minors.
That puts the capital city at risk of losing about $3.7 million in state aid, after lawmakers inserted a provision in the state budget that would bar money from going to local governments with conversion bans on the books.
Columbia City Manager Teresa Wilson said that money pays for basic city operations, like public safety, parks, trash collection and infrastructure.
Its absence, she said, will leave a "gaping hole in the general fund of the city."
"There's no room in the general fund to replace $3.7 million," said Wilson, who said the city will turn to hospitality tax dollars instead to help cover the gaps. "And I say that with all sincerity. I hate we're in the place we are."
It’s not clear when the City Council may return to consider whether to repeal the ordinance.
Wilson said the first of two budget readings is set for June 10.
Columbia remains the only South Carolina city that has passed a ban on conversion therapy.
The postponement followed an hours-long City Council meeting that included an executive session, lengthy public testimony and appeals to let the state take the city of Columbia to court.
Several people urged the council to keep the ban and dissuade licensed medical and mental health professionals from pushing what is considered a discredited practice that aims to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.
"Conversion therapy is not therapy. It is abuse masquerading as a treatment," said former state Rep. James Smith, who told City Council that he and an "army of lawyers are standing here ready to represent the city on a pro bono basis."
The Columbia City Council adopted the ordinance in 2021.
It prohibits licensed providers from practicing conversion or reparative therapies within city limits to anyone under 18.
Violators face a fine of up to $500.
Its passage led Spartanburg Republican Sen. Josh Kimbrell to request an opinion from Republican Attorney General Alan Wilson that questioned the ban's constitutionality.
But it wasn't until this year that Wilson demanded the ban be repealed or face legal action.
He argued the ban violated a 2022 state law, which, he said, "expressly preempts any municipal interference with medical practitioners' professional conduct and judgment."
Kimbrell took the demand one step further.
He proposed a budget provision — called a proviso — that would prohibit state aid from going to local governments with ordinances that ban conversion therapy.
That measure is included in the state's $14.5 billion spending plan that will be voted on Wednesday by the full Legislature.
Kimbrell and Wilson are both possible candidates for governor next year.
"We didn't start this. You know how this started? Because for two years it was quiet, and you had an AG (attorney general) who now, and a senator who now are running for governor," Columbia Mayor Daniel Rickenmann told a packed council chambers Tuesday. "We didn't create this."
Rickenmann used the meeting to explain the city's process in an attempt to dispel information that he said was not correct.
Last week, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bruce Bannister told reporters city leaders supported the proviso.
"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," Bannister, R-Greenville, told reporters May 21.
Bannister declined to say who at the city asked for help.
"Beyond popular belief, nobody up here called up and said we're advocates for this," Rickenmann said. "To be honest, I wish it had all gone away."
Rickenmann said while the ordinance has "no teeth," he added he hopes to have more conversations about how to protect the LGBTQ+ community.
Gov. Henry McMaster told reporters at the Statehouse Wednesday that he does not plan to veto the budget measure.
"I know there are a lot of important things that need to be done. I think that city ordinance probably is not one of them," McMaster said. "The city's growing. It's looking good. I don't understand the need for that. And, besides that, I think the attorney general thinks it's unconstitutional and it probably is. If the state sees a need to react to that, then that's what they're going to do."
