Know Thy Enemy
Meet the Four Men Most Obsessed with Stopping Gay Marriage in Washington State
Tools
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.
Stranger Personals
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." 
Share via
1
And if they do - can these creepers beat us?
Stay tuned?
4
Even if they don't get caught, we all know...
9
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.
Not supporting these guys' views, just noting that we shouldn't assume that they're horrible people because they disagree with us.
@ awexler: You really had to finish off an excellent point by calling someone names? You jackass.
Can they be exiled?
Hey--yeah!! Can we hunt them down and roast 'em?
Can we?? Huh? Huh?
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 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.
25
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.
26
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
That alone would be a wake up call for a woman to say "This guy is a nut-case, I need to move on".
34
36
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.
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.
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.
39
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.
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.
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.
"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?
Keep your petitions and votes out of my business.
villager98
I couldn't have summed it up better myself!
You certainly pegged those boneheads right on the money.
I couldn't have summed it up better myself!
You certainly pegged those boneheads right on the money.
I couldn't have summed it up better myself!
You certainly pegged those boneheads right on the money.
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.
So, to counter this you want to… prohibit marriage???
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (59) RSS