Houston RR Group Makes Big Sunday Church Push for Anti-Gay Referendum

An email from the far-right Houston Area Pastor Council today calls on pastors “to serve as the turning point in the anti-family tide” by using their churches this Sunday to collect signatures for a referendum overturning the city’s recently passed Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO). From the email:

Pastors, that is a reminder that we can gather signatures ONE MORE SUNDAY so please pull out all the stops one last time! I urge you to have qualified voters with petitions at your doors before and after services as well as the tables set up in each main entrance with strong pulpit promotion again

We can truly say that like the “Walker, Texas Ranger” theme song, “The eyes of Texas are upon you!” The state is watching us and in fact the nation is watching us to see if the LGBT movement chalks up another victory at the expense of all this is good, decent and right according to the Word of God…

…or whether the pastors, congregations and citizens of Houston will serve as the turning point in the anti-family tide by stopping this HERE and NOW.

Houston’s City Council passed the Equal Rights Ordinance on May 28 by a vote of 11-6. The ordinance protects against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and other characteristics.

Passage came despite a divisive and deceitful campaign by religious-right groups and activists to stop it. That campaign promoted fear, myths, distortions and even personal attacks against Mayor Annise Parker. Opponents denounced LGBT people as evil and shamefully claimed the ordinance would allow sexual predators into women’s restrooms. They also argued that the ordinance threatens their religious freedom — the freedom, that is, to discriminate against people they don’t like. At one point a Houston pastor who opposed the HERO even insisted that religious freedom allows a businessperson or anyone else to discriminate against anyone, including Jews as well as LGBT people.

In the end, however, a broad coalition of grassroots organizations, including Equality TexasTexans Together, the ACLU of Texas and the Texas Freedom Network, working behind the courageous leadership of Mayor Parker, Council Member Ellen Cohen and religious leaders across Houston, made sure that equality won and demonstrated to the rest of the country that Houston doesn’t discriminate.

Now the Houston Area Pastor Council, led by one of the city’s most vicious voices of hate, Dave Welch, hopes to repeal the HERO with a public vote. A signature campaign to put San Antonio’s new Nondiscrimination Ordinance up for a public referendum last year failed. The number of required petition signers is lower in Houston, however. Supporters of a November HERO referendum must submit their list of signers to the city by July 3.

20 thoughts on “Houston RR Group Makes Big Sunday Church Push for Anti-Gay Referendum

  1. Most of the pastors of churches in Houston can be characterized as either suburban gutless wimps or inner-city pulpit pimps. The suburban pastors are characterized by their ignorance and apathy toward City of Houston politics while most of the inner-city minority pastors exhibit a lust for recognition, power and money which is satisfied by their support and promotion of political prostitutes. A political prostitute is a politician who pretends to be of high moral character while campaigning in churches, but in reality, prostitutes him or herself by supporting legislation, such as HERO, that is contrary to Biblical principle. Political prostitutes often win election with a coalition of support from pulpit pimps, homosexuals, radical feminists, abortionists and socialists while the suburban wimps watch in silence fearing the loss of their tax exemption.

      1. You’re right,Charles, and that is how this mayor and 11 council members got elected in the first place.

        1. Jim they were elected by campaigning on representing ALL of their constituents, not just the ones that they agreed with or shared just a closed minded religious view

          1. They were elected by appealing, not to all CONSTITUENTS, but to a majority of VOTERS, most of whom are gullible, low-information voters, not well informed, knowledgeable voters who are concerned with the long-term, well-being of the community. The vast majority of “constituents” cannot identify the Vice-President of the U.S. or either of their U.S. Senators, much less county commissioners and school board members.
            The upcoming voter referendum in Houston on HERO will show a better representation of constituents.

          2. So, Jim, Houston voters who have elected Annise Parker to three terms on City Council, three terms as City Controller, and three terms as mayor are just too stupid to know what’s good for them? And the smart ones are the folks who don’t vote? Interesting theory.

          3. It is never smart not to vote. People don’t vote because they don’t care. They are also uninformed about the candidates and the issues. Stupidity plus ignorance plus apathy plus lobbyist money equals Anise Parker and HERO. HERO is a wake-up call to concerned Houstonians and whether or not it is loud enough is yet to be seen.

          4. Folks who support Mayor Parker and HERO are also “concerned Houstonians.” And informed.

          5. Concerned and informed about WHAT??????
            They are not concerned about their families or their children or their grandchildren because they don’t have any now and will never have any.

  2. It is high time for these churches to have their tax exempt status revoked. Off they want to be political activists then they need to ‘render unto Ceasar’.

    1. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are God’s.” The United States of America is “one nation under God.” The American people do not belong to the government, the government belongs to the people. It is a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE. The churches are made up of these same PEOPLE and if an overreaching government disallows the PEOPLE of the church to voice their opinions and exercise THEIR responsibility for THEIR government then there is no reason to celebrate this July 4th. And the gutless pastors who yield to these pressures will eventually discover that they have no voice and no freedom. History bears this out very clearly.

      1. No one is stopping the PEOPLE of the CHURCH from exercising their right to vote, express their beliefs, etc. However, CHURCHES are NOT PEOPLE individually, but a collection of people, and are under our laws considered tax exempt because they do not take part in the political process. A pastor can (and should) urge her congregation to vote, however, that same pastor should NOT from the pulpit, tell these same congregants who to vote for, or what other political action to take. That is a violation of our laws. This is NOT one nation under God. That line was added in the 1950s. Our forefathers were very clear that we were to be a nation formed free of an official religion, that we were all free to worship as we choose. And that means that gay people are allowed here too. You don’t like it? Move to Iran.

        1. Pastors are hired or “called” to lead and encourage the people of their church to go in the “right” direction and to do the “right” thing according to Biblical principle. (Perhaps this is why they are called the religious “right”.) Our Christian forefathers came to America because the European governments dictated when, where, how and if they worshiped. This is the reason their first priority in forming a new government in America was to guarantee the protection of the freedom to speak and worship as they chose. This is the reason that in America, Muslims, Buddhists and any other religion can worship as they wish. This is the reason that Communists, Nazis, Fascists and any other political parties can participate in the American political process. This is the reason that homosexuals and others can practice their sexual deviancies within the wide bounds of public decency. This is the reason you can openly complain about churches and pastors who have the courage to stand for Biblical principle. Iran is not an option because, in Iran, Christians are persecuted and since there is no Christian influence, homosexuals are immediately executed. The same is true in communist countries. Do you get the picture? No Christian courage, no sexual freedom!!

          1. Congratulations for winning the first DtD Award. This rare accomplishment of producing a comment that is “Dumber than David” (Barton, of course) took considerable thought and work and deserves recognition.

            After all, it is hard to skip over the hundred plus years and many different governments — including one for the “United States” called the Articles of Confederation — between the first colonization and the writing of the First AMENDMENT. I capitalize the words to point out that not only was this not a priority in the first governments set up for the colonies — many of which had their own rules as to ‘when, how, and if’ their residents worshipped — but that it wasn’t even, technically, a priority in the writing of the Constitution, but instead was added two years later, after the government had been founded and launched, by the First Congress, not by the Constitutional Convention.

            The fact that most of the creators of the right to freedom of religion were Deists or secularists might matter — as would the fact that the form of Christianity they practiced had little relation to the American Fundamentalist Christianity that was created in the late 1800s. (I’d love to take a day or so and read the comments by Christian ministers of the time about groups such as the Wesleyans, the Anabaptists, even the Quakers and Catholics and quote them to you, yet they were far closer to the contemporary Protestantism than is todays version of Fundamentalist Christianity.

            But crediting ‘Christian Courage’ with any responsibility or credit for permitting homosexuals their ‘sexual freedom’ may be the single most hilarious line I will read this week, and the fact that homosexuals can practice their [homosexual sexual acts] within the wide range of sexual decency is a right they have had — over the objection of the vast majority of your type of Christian — for about ten years.

          2. Thanks for your comments. You seem to be very knowledgeable of American history and government. I am in the process of researching and writing on this and related subjects. My intent is to identify which strong, independent and self-sufficient nations of the world today allow homosexuals the freedom to exhibit their lifestyle openly. By openly I mean gay pride parades, gay bars, same-sex marriage and job protection.
            Then I want to identify which of these nations have a strong Christian influence in their society now or in the recent past. My theory is NOT that Christian influence and courage enhances the homosexual lifestyle. My theory is that Christianity assures an environmental freedom that PERMITS such a lifestyle in a “don’t ask, don’t tell” manner.
            My theory is that as the Christian influence weakens, the immoral lifestyle graduates from being PERMITTED to being PROTECTED. By that I mean laws that take away the freedom of others to be discriminant in property leasing and hiring, etc. As Christianity weakens even further, the homosexual lifestyle moves from PROTECTED to PROMOTED with gay pride parades, same-sex marriage etc.
            But let me emphasize once again that the masquerading of the homosexual lifestyle is not the major problem. It is only a symptom, an indicator of the main problem which is the weakening condition of the Christian church and Christian influence on society and government. It is like pain in the human body is only a symptom of a deeper, more serious ailment in the body.
            If David Barton is correct and our nation and government are built on the foundation of Christian principle and the foundation is cracking and disintegrating, then the building is going to collapse. Most of the suburban church pastors (to whom I refer as gutless wimps) don’t have the courage to stand up for the Bible and Biblical principle. They are afraid of being called bigoted, homophobic, DtD fascists and losing their tax exemption, Most of the inner-city pastors (pulpit pimps) want the money and glory of promoting political prostitutes who run for political office, pretending to be Christians while supporting homosexual and abortion agendas.
            The entire nation and our government are already weak and on the door step of total chaos. History and present-day events prove that chaos leads to dictatorship and loss of freedom. The dictatorship will probably be communist or Islamic who doesn’t get there by being nice. He will probably be like other dictators who considers homosexuality a threat, or at least, an insult to his manhood. Homosexuals will be lucky to get back into the closet before they are executed.
            Please send me a list of the titles of books you have written on this subject and where they can be purchased. I would like to compare your theories with those of David Barton to see exactly where you disagree and why.

          3. Oh my but do you have things wrong. I will deal with most of your comments later — and no, I have not written any books or articles, I am strictly a ‘knowledgeable amateur.’ (I will give you several valuable books that you should read later in the discussion.)

            Since I have anumber of things to do this morning, including possibly a rare trip out of the house — my 68-year old legs don’t always make that easy — to deliver an article following up on a political argument with my doctor — and some extra work around the house — I’ll start with the question that is most important:

            what do you mean by “Christian”?

            If, as many American ‘Christians’ do, you are referring only to he sort of Conservative, Biblical Literalist, “Fundamentalist” (in the sense of adhering to the principles in the pamphlet series “Fundamentals of Christianity” published around 1900 — which is where the term comes from), Evangelical Christianity typical of American “Right Wing” Christianity, you’ll find your thesis hard to discuss.

            That type of Christianity has only had any power — or even respect — in America during a couple of periods, last century in Rural America from 1900-1930, and in America from 1970 to the Present — as well as in a few South or Central American countries after 1950 and some sub-Saharan African countries since about 1990.

            This type of Christianity did not exist pre-1900, and has always been considered pretty much of a joke by European Christians, even European Evangelicals.

            (I would strongly suggest you Google “Chris Tilling” and read his blog as well as some of his published works, and then read some of the blogs that he links to or whose own authors join the discussions with him, and the works of the many authors he has interviewed on his blog. I think you would be surprised to know what the concerns of serious, academic Evangelicals are, or how most American Fundamentalism is viewed, including some of the prime ideas that it alone features. Only American Christianity — and only since LeHaye began writing — accepts Darby’s invention of “The Rapture” an invention that has nothing to do with early or even Reformation Christianity but was invented/concocted by the brilliant but eccentric ex-Anglican George Darby — founder of the Plymouth Brethren — in the early 1800s. And the linkage of many political ideas with this form of Christianity is again unknown out of this area. Most European Christians, including evangelicals, consider most American Fundamentalists as ignoramuses who barely understand that the Bible was not written in English and that the KJV is a translation — and a pretty bad one at that according to most scholars.)

            But, of course, ‘Christianity’ is much wider than that, including Catholics — both Roman and Anglican — Orthodox of various national strands, ‘mainstream’ and liberal Christianity — still actually the majority of Protestant Christians even in America, though they aren’t anywhere as noisy or as exclusionist as are the Fundamentalists. Whether, technically, either Mormons or Muslims — who accept Jesus as a prophet and accept most of the New Testament (with their own interpretation as Christians accept Judaism and the Old Testament, but with their own spin.)

            So, when you use the term “Christian” exactly what do you mean by it?

            I’ll discuss your thesis, which seems to have, at first glance, little connection with facts, if I have the chance later this afternoon.

          4. I know I said I’d get back to you later, but just wanted to add a couple of quick point. You say “If David Barton is correct” but he simply isn’t. His works have been debunked by any serious student of history — including many who are Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christians — that has studied them. In particular his attempt to draft Jefferson for his version of the “Christian team” is idiocy. The man was a Deist who rejected entirely any sort of divinity or miracles of Jesus, though he, like many non believers respected much of what Jesus taught. (Most of which comes pretty directly from Hillel, in fact, with the addition of Jesus’ assurance of the immanent End Times and some Zoroastrian influence — remember, this area was under Persian control for three times longer than it had been under the Roman Empire at that time. That came much more into Paul’s writing, of course.)

            In fact, during Jefferson’s campaign for the Presidency, the attacks leveled against him were — though, as I said, coming from a different Christian theology — much the same as are labeled at today’s progressives, that they are conspiratorial anti-American schemers. In fact, that pet paranoia of the modern right, the Illuminati, actually was first produced — and debunked — before Jefferson was elected.

            I think, btw, you are equally ignorant of the attitudes towards homosexuals even in America over time. Thus there was little concern shown that America elected a gay President — whose gayness was certainly known in Washington and in most political circles — in James Buchanan. (His long-time companion and probably lover, William R.R. King was also elected Vice President — under Pierce, not under Buchanan — but died before he could serve.)

            For that matter, it is arguable that, during the 50s, three of the five most influential figures were all closeted gays, J. Edgar Hoover, Joseph McCarthy, and Cardinal Spellman. (And how much of McCarthy’s crumbling came from the fallout of Roy Cohn’s desperate chase after Mr. Schine?)

            Attitudes towards gays have fluctuated in many ways over time — you would be bemused at the response Oscar Wilde got during his trip through the “Old West” and the Mining Camps, for example, hardly what the myths would have predicted. At other times, sometimes simultaneously with times of tolerance in one part of society, anti-homosexual bigotry flourished.

            So before you discuss your thesis, I hope you have done enough research to discover what the attitudes towards homosexuality actually were before you try and explain them.

          5. If YOU don’t know what a Christian is, then how do YOU know that Jefferson was NOT a Christian? I would love to go with you “chasing rabbits” (Hillel, Zoroastrian, Persians, Romans, Paul, Illuminati, Buchanan, Wm. R.R. King, J. Edgar Hoover, Joseph McCarthy, Cardinal Spellman, Roy Cohn. Mr. Shine, Oscar Wilde, Also Rock Hudson, Raymond Burr and Hillary Clinton, plus Tilling, Lahaye, Darby, the Rapture, Anglicans, Plymouth Brethren, Mormons and Muslims) but being the simple-minded, ignorant, DtD, bigoted fundamentalist that I am, I think it best if I stay on the course of my original theory.
            You are right that the terms, “Christian” and “Christianity” are so diluted and altered from their original meaning and significance that they could mean almost anything that anybody wanted them to mean. As a Christian since childhood, when I think and speak of “Christian”, I am focused on the true, Biblical, original meaning of the term.
            It is human nature to want to change or dilute that which is difficult and or unpopular. This had already started before the Bible was written and consequently it was addressed in the scripture before the death of Jesus’ closest associates and final recording.
            It is interesting to note that the same is now happening with the U.S. Constitution. The writers of the Constitution purposely intended that the document be very difficult to change. Thus, the classic battle between the liberals who “hope” to “change” it, and the conservatives who desire to keep or “conserve” the document in its original form and “intent”. As you know and fret over, this term, “original intent”, is the source of much lively discussion and debate everywhere from the living room to the classroom to the Supreme Court. This brings us back to our original discussion questions-
            (1) Did the Original Colonies display a strong Christian influence in the written documents of their governments and consequently require their Constitutional Convention delegates to insert and/or protect these principles in the new national constitution that was to be written?
            (2) What is the meaning of the terms “Christian” and “Christianity”?
            My initial exploratory research has confirmed a strong correlation between general freedom and open homosexual behavior in nations of the world. A person doesn’t have to be a Joe Biden type genius to understand how this could be true. Homosexual expression is not allowed in any nation governed by dictatorship. There is also a definite correlation freedom and the open practice of Christianity. I am having to dig deeper to determine the colloquial meaning of the term, “Christian” and whether or not its influence is presently strong or weakening. I also need to determine if the practice or Christianity and the practice of homosexuality are results of freedom, OR did the freedom result from Christian courage or homosexual courage.

      2. Are you the same Jim Kennedy from Flower Mound who spends the better part of his day trolling the Internet spewing hate, hypocrisy, hyperbole, and the hysterical TX GOP party line?

        This site welcomes debate, but the object of this debate is that people must come to our with an open mind. You sir, are not willing to admit that your positions may be wrong. Thus, talking with you is a colossal waste of time.

        1. No I’m not a Log Cabin Republican. You are probably right that it is a waste of your time to talk with me since you obviously have very little knowledge of history, the reality what is happening in the world today, and therefore, incapable of a factual, intelligent discussion.