Litigant Appling Eligible For A Domestic Partnership?
Wisconsin's Never-Married Anti-Gay Cop Co-Habits With College Chum “Sister”
Madison - The announcement on July 23 by Wisconsin Family Action (WFA) that it's president Julaine Appling and two WFA board members have petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to overturn the recently enacted domestic partnership registry for same-sex couples came as no surprise to most political observers. Appling has been telegraphing the group's intentions for months, most recently on July 2 when she told the press that the Wisconsin Family Council, her “family” organization, might file a court challenge to the registry in partnership with the James Dobson-founded Alliance Defense Fund.
  Both the WFA and the Wisconsin Family Council are also heavily involved with Dobson's multi-million dollar Focus On The Family (FOTF) operation. FOTF money also played a major role in funding the "Yes On Marriage" campaign in the successful 2006 battle to enact an amendment to the Wisconsin constitution to ban civil unions and same-sex marriage.
  However, the lead litigant in the Supreme Court case also appears to be eligible for a domestic partnership herself. Joint Finance Committee Chair Mark Pocan (D-Madison) suggested about seven minutes into an early May debate with Appling on the syndicated Wisconsin political talk show “Up Front With Mike Gousha” that she did not have to have a registered relationship. “I’m not saying that Ms. Appling and her roommate have to form a domestic partnership,” Pocan said. “But if my committed partner of seven years and I want to form one... I should have that right.”
  Appling did not respond directly to Pocan's allegation, opting instead to point out that the partner registry was buried in the 1,700 page budget document. Quest subsequently investigated Pocan's comment and discovered that the sixty-something, never-married Appling actually may be eligible to register for a domestic partnership.
  Appling owns a home in Watertown with a fellow sixty-something, never married woman named M. Diane Westphall. They purchased the home together on September 28, 2007 for $148,500 from Brian and Adrianna Hollenbeck, according to Jefferson County property tax records.
  If that makes the pair guilty of anything it’s poor timing - they are the fourth couple to own the house in five years and it soared in value from its March 2002 estimate of $106,200. Quest obtained a photo of the home, located at 106 South Montgomery St. on Watertown.
  However, Appling and Westphall also work together - a lot. Both are employed at the Wisconsin Family Council: Julaine as the Chief Operating Officer and most visible face of the organization and Diane as a “Project Coordinator.” Appling’s “Meet the Staff” biography is fleshed out; Westphall’s is “coming soon.” Problem is its been coming and coming and coming - ever since the new site went up, replacing the old Wisconsin Family Research Institute-monikered website months ago. Quest has checked repeatedly. Something to hide? Maybe, maybe not - as another staffer’s biography is also incomplete.
  Appling and Westphall also teach at Watertown’s Maranatha Baptist Bible College. Westphall currently teaches a class in Business Communication. Appling will teach a class on National Government this Fall, a discreet semester apart.
  Appling and Westphall also have worked together on a project for the Watertown-based Eternal Vision, Inc., a self-described “Ministry of Biblical Stewardship.” In the last two and a half years, the tax-exempt organization has developed 30 ministries in 17 states. It also received a million dollar gift to establish a “Wisconsin Church Planting Fund.”
  Appling and Westphall worked together on a 2007 project entitled “Building Conviction For Christian Education,” authoring two articles for a supplemental information package that provides resources for pastoral teams. Appling’s article, “Walking in the Counsel, Standing in the Aisles, Sitting in the Seats,” contrasts public and Christian schools. Among this differences Appling points out is that mainstream schools’ “Human Growth and Development programs typically don’t champion abstinence, science programs... are by and large governed by the tenets of evolution... (and) the homosexual agenda is frequently not only present but pervasive...”
  Westphall’s brief piece, “The Emerging Butterfly Who Lives at Your House,” talks about the many awakenings brought on by adolescence using the caterpillar-into-butterfly metaphor in part to frame the piece.
  So it is clear that Julaine and Diane are certainly more than just “two guys sitting in an ice shanty somewhere,” as she expressed last February to Judith Davidoff when Appling first complained about Doyle’s benefits proposal. But could a familial relationship rule out a possible domestic partnership? Possibly.
  In the November 26, 2007 Watertown Daily Times obituary for Raymond Westphall, it is noted that “survivors include his daughters, Diane Westphall, Renée Westphall, Janet (Ben) Peterson, and Julaine Appling, all of Watertown.”
  That does not appear to jibe with Appling’s official biography which notes “Julaine is a native of Atlanta, Georgia, where at the age of 5 months, she was adopted into the loving home of Bob and Mary Appling..”
  Of course being an adopted child certainly does not rule out Raymond Westphall as her biological father. The senior Westphall’s obituary also noted that “From 1934 to 1941, Ray played professional baseball in the minor leagues. During World War II, 1941-1945, Ray served with honors as a T-sergeant athletic instructor in the U.S. Army Medic unit... (and) for a number of years, he was an umpire in the American Association.”
  Given the era of Julaine’s conception, it is certainly possible a potentially embarrassing family secret might lurk in the discrepancy above. It certainly would inform Ms. Appling’s zeal for preserving what she perceives as “traditional families” in her current position.
  But what if Julaine is a metaphorical daughter, an invited member of the family? Many people choose to include non-biological members in their families on the basis of an affectional relationship with one or more of the blood relatives. Does that make her a lesbian, something Pocan certainly might have been trying to imply with his roommate quip? Not necessarily.
  According to their available biographies, another Julaine-Diane connection is that they both went to Bob Jones University. Given their ages, they possibly encountered one another on campus. Two good Baptists girls graduate and one joins her best friend back in her hometown sometime after due to their college connection? It’s certainly plausible.
  So two life-long friends with similar backgrounds and values live together, work together and eventually buy a house together. The scenario is reminiscent of the 80’s television sitcom “Kate and Allie,” albeit without that show's minor children.
  Appling and Westphall appear to truly care for each other given their years together personally and professionally. They clearly have co-mingled their assets. Living together at the same residence is required to obtain a domestic partnership.
 So if Appling and Westphall wanted to be able to visit each other in the hospital, cash each other’s checks or take care of one or the other’s final wishes and they’re not bound by blood, they could choose to get a domestic partnership. There’s no sexual intimacy test to register for a domestic partnership if the couple are concerned that they might be perceived as lesbians.
  In the WFA press release announcing the Supreme Court challenge, Appling stated: “This registry is an assault on the people, the state constitution, the democratic process, and the institution of marriage...” However, during the budget debate, the majority of Wisconsinites in a St. Norbert/Wisconsin Public Radio poll supported Doyle’s proposal for the domestic partnership registry.
  Legal observers have already questioned both the late timing of Appling's petition. It is unlikely to resolved prior to the start of the statewide registry August 3. They also have questioned whether the trio listed in suit even have any standing to challenge the registry.
  In Appling's case, as lead litigant, she even appears to be acting against her own best interests. And by taking the lead  in challenging the domestic partner registry she opens herself to public scrutiny, just as many other upholders of “family values” have been. For some, such as Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, and Jimmy Swaggart, that scrutiny has led to revelations that led to their downfall. The question is will Wisconsin's media giants have the temerity to ask?