The LGBT lobby is riding a successful wave of cultural and legal revolution. An obvious sign is that the lesbian Mayor of Houston, Texas was the key figure behind the Houston city council’s attempt to subpoena pastors’ speeches, sermons, and communications that mentioned homosexuality or gender identification—or were in any way critical of the mayor herself.

A little background on the Houston case will help us to understand more clearly how activists create their wave of revolution, and what might be done to oppose such misuse of public power.

In May 2014, Mayor Parker and the city council passed a “non-discrimination” ordinance in the face of strong opposition. In the day long debate beforehand, the significant opposition was heard but ignored. The council pushed the ordinance through, with a vote of 11 to 6.

Mayor Parker implied that the ordinance originated as a response to area African-American men complaining that they had been denied access to a nightclub because of their race. While that may have been the origin, the ordinance branched out to include provisions that would protect the “right” of cross-dressing or transgendered men/women to enter public bathrooms of their own choosing.

In response to the ordinance being pushed through, a citizens’ petition arosewith well over twice the number of signatures needed to bring the issue to a public ballot. But the city council mysteriously found a majority of these signatures to be invalid. The petitioners then filed a lawsuit against the city. And that is when the city—with Mayor Parker leading the charge—demanded that area pastors hand over their sermons and private communications.

Again, after a justified public outcry, the Mayor and her council backed down.

Let’s look at the council vote (11 to 6). That vote, in itself, illustrates one important way that LGBT activists force social, institutional, and legal change: from the top down, using local, state, and federal power. Not by open debate, but at the instigation of very few people in positions of public power, here a mere eleven. You don’t need to change everyone’s mind; you just need to find a political Archimedean point and you can move the world by fiat.

But the use of political power is not the only mode of bringing about revolution without debate. That strategy is part of a larger, several-pronged approach which includes institutionalizing, and legalizing—again, all from the positions of power.

Can we debate this?

Apparently not. Witness Robert Lopez, who grew up with two moms. He wrote an article “Growing Up with Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View,” in which he simply wanted to report his very real experience. But Dr. Lopez, a professor of English and Classics at Cal-State Northridge, immediately came under vicious attack from the media and LGBT activists, as well as from the university faculty and staff. The persecution spread quickly. Grant money suddenly dried up, invitations to speak at other institutions were revoked, and his picture was even put on a human rights “wanted” poster. All for daring to say that his own experience of having two moms was not all that rosy, to say the least.

The strategy of institutionalizing, is well illustrated both by the Lopez and the Houston case. As LGBT activists understand, institutions are arguments. That’s why Professor Lopez was steamrolled by the entrenched LGBT politically-correct machinery of his academic institution (as well as others). Professor Lopez’s treatment by the academically institutionalized LGBT agenda demonstrates quite nicely that academia is the last place to go if you want to have a debate about homosexuality.

The legality prong, we’ve already seen, but let’s take a closer look. As happened in Houston, LGBT activists seek positions of local, state, and national power so they may impose, without meaningful debate, their agenda. But even this use of raw power has some subtleties, even genius, in its strategy.

Note that Mayor Parker began with a legitimate civil rights issue: the discrimination against African-American men, who have a human right not to be treated as less than human. Piggy-backing on this legitimate right, Parker attached the LGBT notion—without debate—that bisexual or transgendered men/women have the exact same kind of right to choose whatever bathroom strikes their fancy.

The obvious problem in sidestepping debate is that there is a whole lot that needs to be discussed. That’s why 50,000 plus enraged Houstoners—no small number of whom were women who do not want to be forced by a legal stick to share public restrooms with men in drag—signed a petition to repeal the non-discrimination ordinance by open ballot.

There needs to be much more real and very public debate. This will happen only when Christians understand the strategies for sidestepping debate, so they are not duped into silence.