Wednesday, September 05, 2012

Regarding Preserve Marriage Washington

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

I am being inundated with questions from individuals and pastors regarding recent articles in the Seattle Times and other news organizations across the state concerning the Preserve Marriage Campaign not being in compliance with the Public Disclosure Commission and current campaign finance law.

There have been two main stories that I am aware of--perhaps there are more.

Rachel La Corte, with Associated Press wrote this article on August 30, which claims that Preserve Marriage is not in compliance in regard to "bundling" contributions from churches.

La Corte wrote a second article on the subject, Tuesday, September 4, saying although the wording in the church instructions on the Preserve Marriage website have been changed, officials say Preserve Marriage is still not in compliance.

KOMO News carried this story.

This is all I know about this particular issue.

I am not a part of the Preserve Marriage organization. I believe Joseph Backholm and Chris Plante lead it.

I fully support the mission to overturn the homosexual "marriage" law. We worked tirelessly to help put both R-74 and I-1192 on the November ballot, with friends of Faith and Freedom gathering tens of thousands of signatures for both. I personally believed both were important to the defense of marriage.

We are continuing an extensive effort to educate people concerning the error of redefining civilization's oldest and most important model for successful families.

Marriage must only be defined as between one man and one woman.


  1. It is amazing that this confusion has been going on for over 2 weeks and Backholm is *still* giving incorrect advice to churches about bundling. This is a very serious matter for the churches and the individual contributors, since violating campaign finance laws can bring serious penalties.

    He obviously cares first and foremost about getting as much money as possible into his coffers. If the churches who listen to his bogus advice later face fines and legal action as a result, what does he care?

    Backholm has shown time and time again that he doesn't care about the church or about Christian voters. This is all about him building a reputation as a political heavy hitter, and money plays a big part in that. That is why he destroyed the real measure to protect marriage, I-1192. He couldn't let I-1192 and its Christian supporters succeed because it would have competed with him and possibly taken away some of his money and glory.

    I will not support a glory-seeking man who undermines Christians and puts the church at risk. I will absolutely support a renewed effort to put either I-1192 or a constitutional amendment on the ballot next year.

    1. Backholm is morally bankrupt as he has time and again exposed him self through the denial of the clear Word of God.


  2. Can you just imagine the venom and self righteousness from Gary if the pro-marriage side was doing this? He wouldn't wait for the facts, he'd be as judgmental as ever.

  3. I think you have skipped the facts. It is a strecth to try blaming Gary for something he has nothing to do with, so blame him for what you think he might have done. Now that's venom. Thanks for the info Gary.

  4. I agree with 5:47. Gary has no blame in any of this. This is all on Backholm and his fiefdom, Preserve Marriage WA.

    The only thing for which I blame Gary is not speaking out more strongly about how this effort has been coopted by Backholm and Fuiten, even while the genuine effort to protect marriage, I-1192, was destroyed. Backholm and Fuiten have a lot of repenting to do, but I see no sign of repentance or contrition whatsoever, which is why I could never support them. To do so would be unbiblical.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.