A controversial resolution aimed at declaring Portsmouth a sanctuary city for the LGBTQ+ community — specifically for transgender individuals and gender-affirming care — was defeated Monday night in a 5-1 City Council vote. The emotionally charged proposal sparked passionate debate, symbolic gestures, and plenty of political backlash.
Councilman Sean Dunne, the lone supporter, introduced the resolution two weeks ago after it was drafted by members of the Shawnee State University Young Democrats. Inspired by a similar move in Athens, Ohio, the resolution sought to offer symbolic protection and public support for LGBTQ+ residents — especially as many in the community report feeling targeted and unsafe amid recent state-level policy changes.
“The motivation was just that — to make people feel safe in Portsmouth,” said Dunne. “It was meant as a gesture of solidarity.”
But what started as a message of support quickly turned into a flashpoint.
🚫 Sanctuary in Name Only?
Opponents argued that the term “sanctuary city” was misleading and unnecessarily divisive. Like similar declarations made for undocumented immigrants or Second Amendment supporters, this resolution would have had no legal authority to override state or federal law. Council members emphasized that regardless of local sentiment, Ohio law still applies — including newly passed restrictions on gender-affirming care and public facility use.
Still, supporters insisted the symbolism matters.
“Even if it’s symbolic, symbols matter,” said one speaker. “It tells LGBTQ+ youth growing up here that someone sees them and wants them to feel safe.”
👨⚖️ Critics Call it a Political Stunt
The backlash was swift and sharp.
Judge Steven L. Mowery of Portsmouth Municipal Court blasted the resolution as “a ridiculous exercise in divisive politics,” calling it “engineered by a guy who’s suing other council members” — a jab at Dunne’s ongoing legal dispute with fellow council members. “Many say he just loves to cause controversy. Well, mission accomplished,” Mowery quipped.
Councilwoman Lyvette Mosely, while voting against the measure, struck a more conciliatory tone. “I’m glad members of the LGBTQ+ community showed up and expressed their views. That’s important. We need to treat everyone with respect,” she said.
Councilman Dennis Packard cited constituent opposition as his reason for voting no. “Ninety percent of the Sixth Ward residents who contacted me were against the original version. Even after revisions, 70 to 80 percent still opposed it.”
⚖️ What Would the Resolution Have Actually Done?
In short: nothing enforceable. Like “Second Amendment sanctuary” cities, the proposal would have been entirely symbolic, expressing support for LGBTQ+ individuals and transgender rights without changing how laws are enforced. Any city services, schools, and law enforcement agencies would still be bound by state law — including recent legislation in Ohio regulating healthcare access and school policies for transgender minors.
Even references to Planned Parenthood and transgender youth were scrubbed from the final version in an attempt to make the resolution more palatable to critics.
Still, Dunne and the students who helped draft it say the intention wasn’t to change the law — but to change the tone.