They’ve introduced bigoted legislation, filed referendums, held
rallies, and
raised money—but they’ve never gotten around to
explaining how gay couples actually hurt their marriages. They’ve also allegedly done things
like failed to pay taxes, raised rents on the elderly, and beaten their
wives. They say their battle is a righteous one, but these four
crusaders are short on righteousness and long on catacombs in the
closet.
GARY RANDALL, a former televangelist, is a cofounder and
board member of Protect Marriage Washington, the group trying to repeal
Washington’s new domestic-partnership bill by putting it up to a public
vote with Referendum 71. He’s also the president of Faith and
Freedom—technically three groups: Faith and Freedom Foundation,
Faith and Freedom PAC, and Faith and Freedom Network—which
campaigned in 2006 against Washington’s antidiscrimination bill to
protect gay people from hate crimes. Randall owns a house in Oregon and
is registered to vote there, so he doesn’t really have a stake in
Washington laws.
IN HIS CLOSET: In the week between May 21 and May 28, Randall
asked his blog readers to donate to the referendum four times. But he
didn’t ask them to donate to the organization running the
referendum, Protect Marriage Washington; he asked his flock to donate
to his own personal organization, the Faith and Freedom PAC. The Faith
and Freedom umbrella has been a successful fundraising machine for
Randall and has paid him handsomely—$53,877 in 2006 for an
average of only 15 hours of work a week, for example—but public
records indicate he hasn’t been keeping up with income taxes. He owes
at least $38,491.63, which includes a $2,479.04 Oregon tax debt
from 1991, according to the Clackamas County Clerk’s Office, as well as
two federal tax liens the IRS filed against him in 1990 and another in
2008. Asked by The Stranger to explain the glut of unpaid
taxes, Randall hung up the phone.
JOE FUITEN used to be tight with Gary Randall, but he opted
out of Randall’s campaign for Referendum 71, predicting that voters
would uphold the domestic-partnership bill. “When Israel decided to
enter the Promised Land without God’s blessing, they were soundly
defeated,” Fuiten, the pastor of Cedar Park Church in Bothell, wrote to
supporters. “If I felt that God was telling us to go ahead, I would do
it in a heartbeat.” Instead, Fuiten proposes running an initiative in
2010 to repeal partnership rights for gay couples. He described
same-sex marriage as “anarchy” to the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer in 2004. “In the biblical law, homosexuality is
always condemned,” he said.
IN HIS CLOSET: But how does biblical law apply to housing the
elderly and poor? For decades, Cedar Springs Camp in Lake Stevens
provided low-cost housing, renting houses for no more than $150 per
month to retired missionaries and church folk—until Fuiten’s
church bought the Bible camp and jacked rents by 83 percent over
three years, a lawsuit filed by 19 residents alleged. (As Horsesass.org, which broke the story, put
it in 2006: “Fuiten… took control of its board by assuming $150,000
of debt, promising to run the camp without major changes… But avarice
knows no bounds, and Fuiten has methodically set out to evict the
camp’s small residential community…”) The church denied the
allegations. “They thought they could embarrass me into giving them
everything they wanted just by suing me,” Fuiten told The
Stranger. The dispute was settled out of court this February.
Fuiten thinks coverage of the dispute has been “biased.”
LARRY STICKNEY grasps the value of marriage. He has been
married three times (and divorced twice) since the 1980s. He cofounded
Protect Marriage Washington with Randall, and he’s the one who filed
the referendum.
IN HIS CLOSET: Kitsap County Superior Court records show
that, in 1994, it was Stickney’s wife who needed protecting. His
then-wife Cheryl alleged that he “badly injured” her twice,
breaking her eardrum and injuring her jaw so seriously she thought it
was broken. She also alleged that after they separated, “He’s come over
several times when I wasn’t home and stolen and destroyed things
belonging to my son and myself.” A superior court judge issued a
restraining order against him. Stickney didn’t return calls from
The Stranger asking about these records, but on his website he
contends that preventing gay people from marrying is necessary because
“the happiness and well-being of both the parents and the children are
best served by the family unit.”
MATT SHEA, a 34-year-old Republican state representative from
Spokane, who is a board member of Protect Marriage Washington, wasted
no time introducing legislation in his first term early this winter: He
sponsored a bill to ban Washington from recognizing same-sex marriages.
“Like you, I am concerned that Washington could become a destination
state for those who cohabitate without the benefit of marriage,” Shea
wrote in a letter to his constituents. His bill died without a hearing.
Nonetheless, he plodded on. “I will oppose efforts in the legislature
to dilute traditional marriage,” he wrote.
IN HIS CLOSET: Wasn’t it Shea’s own traditional marriage that
was, uh, diluted when he and his wife divorced 13 months earlier? Shea
has hardly been a good steward of the institution. The Spokane County
Clerk’s Office identified 44 pleadings related to that
divorce—among them, two temporary restraining orders and a
protection order filed against him by ex-wife Lisa. Shea did not
return calls from The Stranger, but the Spokesman-Review detailed some of the scandal last summer: “Matt T. Shea’s wife, Lisa,
was granted a divorce in January after complaining that he treated
her ‘as a possession,’ and was physically and emotionally abusive.
She said Shea insisted she walk on his left side because his
sword, if he had one, would be on his right side. He said he
knows nothing about that, but as a courtesy would walk between her and
traffic. Lisa Shea’s brother-in-law, Tino P. Vargas, swore in court
documents that he saw Matt Shea yell at his wife, grab her arm ‘very
hard and violently,’ and push her into a vehicle.” 
Disgusting. How love between two consenting adults could be any worse than what these men have done in their own private lives is beyond me.
Primo work – of course, fun as it might be to make fun of these guys, will they get us to the ballot?
And if they do – can these creepers beat us?
Stay tuned?
Bravo! Great reporting Dominic.
Never assume that publishing the dirt on enemies will halt support given them by persons who ignore fact in preference to myth that justifies their own prejudices.
Methinks they doth protest too much!
Eh, I thought this was a greenday review;-)
Of course, it’s just a matter of time before one or all of these guys gets caught in his own gay scandal. You know, trying to have sex in a airport men’s room, routinely having sex with male tweaker prostitutes, getting caught for promoting the cute boy intern that they’ve been having sex with for years. That sort of thing.
Even if they don’t get caught, we all know…
It’s a shame this information isn’t widely known among WA state voters.
This is some good dirt, but publishing it in the Stranger is preaching to the choir, for the most part. I doubt a majority of The Stranger’s readers would vote to ban domestic partnerships. If the information spreads, then I say “hooray.”
“which campaigned in 2006 against Washington’s antidiscrimination bill to protect gay people from hate crimes.”
The Anti-discrimination law protects gay and lesbians from employment discrimination, housing discrimination, etc. But has nothing to do with hate crimes.
Just FYI. Getting the facts right does lend credibility to your reporting.
I would note, though, that the ex-wife stuff (allegations of abuse, etc) is all ‘alleged’ – none of it was proven. It’s seriously not cool if it happened, but, hey, we live in a land where people are innocent until proven guilty.
Not supporting these guys’ views, just noting that we shouldn’t assume that they’re horrible people because they disagree with us.
They are horrible people for ruining people lives, Sprawwl. Not because they disagree, you jackass.
Republican + Spokane = Big Ol’ Flaming Closet Case
more dirt, in pamphlet form, spread accross the land.
queers and allies activate!
more dirt, in pamphlet form, spread accross the land.
queers and allies activate!
Thanks for your research and for posting this. I would love to see someone research Andrew Pugno and Frank Schubert, the “Yes on (Prop) 8” guys.
Pigs ‘n freaks.
Great piece folks.
Nobody’s upholding the virtue of the alleged acts of these guys, and why should they be virtuous to voice their viewpoint anyway? This article is a typical attack on the person rather than the message.
Yes, they are loathsome people. However, many people make outrageous lies in divorce proceedings to advance their interests.
@ sprawwl: Too true, both parties frequently lie in divorce proceedings. Take anything said in them with a grain of salt, especially allegations of abuse. Women DO try to get ahead by claiming abuse.
@ awexler: You really had to finish off an excellent point by calling someone names? You jackass.
This posting should be sent to newspapers all over the state.If even 3-4 run it the rest will pick it up if there is enuf interest generated.I’d love to see these bigots roasted,My Motto, If ya live by the sword,die by the sword.
Why is it so many fucked up rich, corrupt fatassed PIGS want to ruin so many lives?
Can they be exiled?
Hey–yeah!! Can we hunt them down and roast ’em?
Can we?? Huh? Huh?
@20:
Jenn—
I agree with your basic point. However, there are times when reported abuse–from either side—is valid, and should not be brushed off.
The fact that these four fucking PIGS are hellbent on stripping people of their human rights should not even be put on a ballot.
The biggest irony is that they all claim that they “support the institution of marriage”. So why is Larry Stickney, an abusive prick 3-time divorcee, and Matt Shea have required restraining orders from their ex-wives? Oregon homeowner Gary Randall isn’t even REGISTERED to vote here in Washington State, and greedy slumlord Joe Fuiten jacks up rents of non-churchgoers because “the bible says so”!
Is all this because they’re fat, balding, corrupt, ugly, and are possibly running out of women who’ll consent to LOOK, much less marry any of them?!?
Randall, Fuiten, Stickney, and Shea should be rounded up and stuck onto a king-size rotisserie with forks up their hideous asses and branded as done!
Hey, bacon fans—-pig roast, anyone?
I’d personally love to hear creeps of this ilk squeal.
Doesn’t Ref #71 just allow the voters of the State of Washington to have a say if we will have legalized Gay Marriage in Washington State once and for all?
What is the problem of having the people of the State of Washington having a say in what laws they shall live under and how their tax dollars will be spent on important issues such as marriage?
Everyone should sign Ref #71 so that voters can vote on it and decide once and for all time about Gay Marriage in the Evergreen State.
Doesn’t Ref #71 just allow the voters of the State of Washington to have a say if we will have legalized Gay Marriage in Washington State once and for all? What is the problem of having the people of the State of Washington having a say in what laws they shall live under and how their tax dollars will be spent on important issues such as marriage? Everyone should sign Ref #71 so that voters can vote on it and decide once and for all time about Gay Marriage in the Evergreen State.
This attack campaign of our own only makes you look smaller.
As to bringing up the mud involved in a divorce? Seriously, to all of you… Divorce just sucks and both people act like complete assholes to each other. Restraining orders are thrown around in a divorce for any number of reasons and quite frankly, just as whom you choose to marry is none of these people’s business, what happens during a divorce is none of your business.
This attack campaign of our own only makes you look smaller.
As to bringing up the mud involved in a divorce? Seriously, to all of you… Divorce just sucks and both people act like complete assholes to each other. Restraining orders are thrown around in a divorce for any number of reasons and quite frankly, just as whom you choose to marry is none of these people’s business, what happens during a divorce is none of your business.
@PaulinBallard: No one would be dredging up the dirty details of a divorce if these individuals weren’t hellbent on pushing an agenda based around the so-called “sanctity of marriage” which very obviously DOESN’T EXIST.
And, if what happens during a divorce is non of our business, as you say, then what happens in the homes and lives of gay couples really shouldn’t be either, should it?
True, PaulinBallard, it isn’t any of our business. But they are making my marriage their business and the business of everyone in the state, so it only seems fair that their marriages are my business.
And TylTay – why not let everyone in the state decide? Because I don’t see how it is other people’s decision whether or not I have equal rights. Why don’t we just vote on all civil rights issues, so that all minorities can be second-class citizens?
Slightly off topic, but don’t you wear a sword on your left side to draw it with your right hand?
Teri,
Agreed.
But citing these issues only makes the person saying them look bad.
BTW, I whole heartedly support Gay Marriage.
I’ve also been through a divorce and have seen first hand how quickly and how ugly things get out of control.
Scribbles… Obviously anyone saying that (not you) is an absolute tool.
That alone would be a wake up call for a woman to say “This guy is a nut-case, I need to move on”.
Paul, if you can’t even take a “throwing stones” message away from this, you are one of thy enemies.
Lighten up there Francis…
It seems Dominic Holden is more interested in exposing just the negative aspects of the private lives of folks he disagrees with than actually seeing what Ref 71 would actually do if enough valid signatures are gathered.
Maybe it is just too much reefer or he is not getting enough good lovin at home, but the attitude of his article “Know Thy Enemy” is loaded with personal attacks and very little substance. It comes across more like old biddy gossip than actually using the power of his position at The Stranger to logically analyze the merits of both sides of the issue and conclude what would be best for the citizens of the State of Washington.
Ref 71 could end the gay marriage debate in Washington State once and for all by forcing a vote on Gay Marriage in Washington State in November 2009. The people of the Evergreen State should have the right to vote on this major issue. After all they are the ones that will ultimately will live under the result and pay the cost.
The heavily democrat dominated Washington State Congress and the Governor did not have the courage to face the voters directly on this most important issue. Their cowardly act precipitated Ref 71, which again will only place the issue before the voters in November, 2009.
Perhaps Dominic Holden should look into the private lives and write only the negative aspects of Washington State Democrats since they are the ones that really caused the problem. I heard a number have some serious glug glug issues…might explain their odd legislation and the 9 billion dollar budget deficit.
@TylTay:
There is a fundamental problem with putting the civil rights of a minority group up for a vote. Our constitution says we all have equal protection under the law. Every minority, simply because it is a minority, can be outvoted. Their rights should not depend on convincing a majority of the voters that they should have them. Basic civil rights should be given to everyone simply because they are human. The right to marry is one of those basic civil rights.
TylTay – Ref 71 doesn’t do what you think it does. Domestic partnerships would still exist and it has nothing to do with ‘gay marriage’.
Our supreme court said that the legislature could limit license to the marriage contract by whatever criteria it wants but it can’t limit access to the qualities of the contract. Referendum 71 if it passed by disallowing some rights to citizens and their spouses gives an opportunity to return to the Supreme Court and again ask for equal rights. As long as everyone has the same rights via some civil license there is access to the court – its already decided ‘separate but equal’ is ok as far as this subject goes.
Again, agree or disagree with Referendum 71, it wouldn’t set any ‘gay marriage’ precedence.
TylTay – Ref 71 doesn’t do what you think it does. Domestic partnerships would still exist and it has nothing to do with ‘gay marriage’.
Our supreme court said that the legislature could limit license to the marriage contract by whatever criteria it wants but it can’t limit access to the qualities of the contract. Referendum 71 if it passed by disallowing some rights to citizens and their spouses gives an opportunity to return to the Supreme Court and again ask for equal rights. As long as everyone has the same rights via some civil license there is access to the court – its already decided ‘separate but equal’ is ok as far as this subject goes.
Again, agree or disagree with Referendum 71, it wouldn’t set any ‘gay marriage’ precedence.
I think this article foes straight to the heart of the matter. If their issue is retaining some kind of sacredness and integrity for “traditional marriage,” then they put up or shut up. If that’s what they want to talk about, then let’s actually talk about it.
It brings to mind that recent ad with the “confused children” The narrator declaimed “Marriage is about a Mom and a Dad.”
So, apparently, the religious right has no idea how a baby is really made.
If marriage is indeed about a Mom and a Dad, then my marriage is also illegitimate. I have a “mixed marriage,” but I have no intention of having children. If that’s what the religious right wants to say, I will say it louder. They consider most heterosexual marriages abominations. They consider any homosexual marriage, whether it involves kids or not, abominations.
It’s pretty damned clear: marriage is about making babies for the Religious Right. And if you get married in one of their churches, the bride is inseminated right about the time she signs the certificate. But you see, if gays are allowed to marry, they will insist on coming into their church and receiving this insemination service, right there, by the pastor, ostensibly in one of the gay males’ butts. Because that’s where gay babies come from.
“Cuz it says so in the bible.
@TylTay: Does this mean everyone should get to vote on heterosexual marriages as well? Because last I checked, nobody in the US is legally allowed to have a true biblical marriage consisting of one man, a couple hundred women, several hundred concubines, and at least a few of his own daughters… seems to be how most of the “traditional” marriages in the bible are arranged.
Go, Teri, Go!!!
@40:
Hellbound Alleee:
Oof! You said a mouthful!
One of your points certainly tweaked a sensitive nerve of mine: the Church’s “Start Makin’ Babies Now” enforcement upon the signing of marriage licenses.
And I’ve been happily divorced ever since.
@37:
Bullseye!! Right on the MONEY, xingu!!!
@41: Good points, too, Geneva!
PaulinBallard:
Welcome to the 21st Century!
Generally, I’m pretty good with first impressions and when I saw the illustrations of those four men above. My gut had this to say …
“Hi, I’m The Beggar. I’m a gay fat mormon who hasn’t come out of the closet yet and I have to supress my homosexuality by fighting what my church says I need to do. Gay is wrong!”
“Hi, I’m The Landlord and I let Gary park his boat in my garage anytime. We’re old pals, we go way back. (cough, cough) Gay is wrong!”
“Hi, I’m The Fighter and I’m just an angry old fat guy, who, straight or gay, no one would want to have sex with. I stopped hanging out in the gay bars when the rejection just became too much. (swallow hard) Gay is wrong!”
“Hi, I’m The Lawmaker. Shhhhh, I’m just straight up gay but don’t tell anyone. My wife caught me looking at gay porn, which prompted our divorce. I’m writing laws against gay marriage because I’m in denial about my own sexuality. But don’t tell anyone. Gotta go, gotta surf for gay porn. Gay is wrong!”
Then, I read the article and holy crap. Did I peg these boneheads or what?
BRAVO! This needs to be a reoccurring article.
Please.
Sorry to be a pedant, but it’s actually “thine enemy.” If you say “I am a American,” you sound stupid, and it sounds just as stupid to try to sound fancy with ye olde Englishe if you don’t even know how to use it. Just sayin’.
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s rights to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom to worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend upon the outcome of no elections.” U.S. Supreme CourtJustice Robert Jackson, 1943
Keep your petitions and votes out of my business.
villager98
@47: Well said, superfly!
I couldn’t have summed it up better myself!
You certainly pegged those boneheads right on the money.
@47: Well said, superfly!
I couldn’t have summed it up better myself!
You certainly pegged those boneheads right on the money.
@47: Well said, superfly!
I couldn’t have summed it up better myself!
You certainly pegged those boneheads right on the money.
Sorry—-I guess the computer was slow again….
If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.
If thine editor fail to protect thee from error, fire his/her ass.
If thou dost not know thine enemy, pick up a dictionary and get acquainted.
Why am I not surprised, this is disgusting. I’m hopeful that a mainstream newspaper will get some balls and publish this.
WELL, WE DO HAVE THE 1st AMENDMNT, BUT TOO WEIRD ON SOME BLOGS SHOWING THEIR STUPIDITY, OBVIOUSLY STR8 PEOPLE. THEY HAVE NOTHING OBE PROUD OF, CONSIDERING A 51%+ DIVORCE RATE, AND THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVERYWHERE. THEY FOUR ARE THE ULTIMATE HIPOCRITES.
“Like you, I am concerned that Washington could become a destination state for those who cohabitate without the benefit of marriage”
So, to counter this you want to… prohibit marriage???