This municipality recently designated itself as a sanctuary for LGBTQ+ individuals.

The regulation safeguards rights to gender-affirming care and asserts that LGBTQ+ identity is not a disorder or illness.

In a 6-1 vote this past Monday, the Columbia, Missouri City Council officially designated the city as a sanctuary for LGBTQ+ individuals. The council meeting was well-attended, with numerous supporters backing the initiative.

Councilmember Roy Lovelady remarked, “We received input from every district in Columbia.”

The ordinance asserts Columbia as a supportive environment for individuals advocating for LGBTQ+ rights. It deems the enforcement of a 2023 state law prohibiting gender-affirming care as the least prioritized for law enforcement within the city. Furthermore, it outlines protocols for collaborating with other jurisdictions attempting to prosecute individuals seeking or facilitating gender-affirming care.

“The City Council asserts that LGBTQ identity is not a disorder, ailment, sickness, deficiency, or inadequacy, and pledges to seek methods to enhance societal outcomes for LGBTQ residents of Columbia,” states the ordinance.

City councilmember Nick Knoth expressed, “It’s regrettable that we must even contemplate this.”

“The LGBTQ+ community is already a minority group in the United States, so having our voices acknowledged, that sense of recognition and safety, is profoundly significant,” emphasized NClusion+ co-founder Anthony Plogger. “It’s absolutely essential.”

According to ABC 17, numerous transgender students from the University of Missouri shared accounts of being bullied and expressed that the ordinance would provide them with a greater sense of security.

“At a meeting, a transgender man recounted the incident of Noah Ruiz, a young transgender man from Camden, Ohio, who was assaulted by three cisgender men in July 2022 after using a women’s restroom,” the transgender individual stated. “Despite explaining to them that he was instructed by the facility owner to use the women’s restroom due to his assigned female gender at birth, his attackers did not relent. Instead, they hurled homophobic slurs at him while assaulting him.”

Councilmember Don Waterman cast the sole dissenting vote against the ordinance. While he expressed agreement with its objectives, he voiced skepticism regarding its effectiveness in mitigating bullying or hate crimes within the city.

“I don’t perceive a necessity for this ordinance,” he stated.

Opponents of the ordinance argued that it would infringe upon their freedom to express their religious beliefs.