A is for poisoned Appling

This is old news, but I just came across it at Wisconsin Public Television's WisconsinVote.org, which appears to be on hiatus. There is a March 31 link to something called the "State of America's Families blog," and you know you have to check it out because all of them there outfits with "Family" in the name are the real beacons of God's Own Truth and Honesty in America today.

The link gets you to some sort of press release by a gibbering nutcake called Julaine Appling, "president of Wisconsin Family Action." (These "families" are self-referentially incestuous.)

And what you will find is horrifying:

Fair Wisconsin has good reason to believe that Butler will side against traditional marriage as Butler spoke at the Wisconsin LGBT PAC Garden Party in August of 2007. This group subsequently endorsed Butler, noting on its web site that he “spoke in support of LGBT equality.”

First of all I don't quite get how you can accuse somebody of siding against traditional marriage who has been married for 25 years and has grandchildren as opposed to another that's been a lifelong bachelor for going on four-and-a-half decades.

And yes, I know it's damn near unpossible for the "family" units to believe, but somebody actually spoke in support of equality — in America! I can almost hear Jefferson rotating in his grave.

It's getting like Iran around here these days, I tell ya.

Constructive perverts like Julaine Appling and her neurotically prurient ilk spend too much time fixated on the mechanical details of sexual coupling and not enough addressing the larger questions of gender. They're like people who hate porn so much they have to watch it over and over again to make sure it really does offend them.

Does Julaine Appling think, for example, that persons born with ambiguous genitalia "chose that lifestyle"? Not only is sexuality defined with considerable fluidity throughout humanity, so too is our very gender: female, male, and not so clear-cut.

It's little different from what people call "race," which is really only a set of physical distinctions evolved over several hundred thousand years and exactly what you'd expect to find in individual populations within any species. Even the creationists have a word for it: "microevolution." And there's no arguing with them.

In other words, because my parents weren't descended from any of the populations that emigrated eastward across Asia 70,000 years ago, I couldn't choose to look like Akira Kurosawa. Or Miles Davis.

By a similar token, just because somebody's not a raging stud heterosexual in full speed-rut like the "reverend" Ted Haggard doesn't make them exempt from fundamental U.S. freedoms.

"I think we've been extremely tolerant in allowing them to live wherever they choose," Julaine Appling has been reported as saying about gay people. Well that's mighty white of you, Ms. Appling (if that really is your real gender).

The Gay Science

Speaking of links, an observation here pursuant to the local Christian "Family" Crusader Julaine Appling scored a couple, one from Rick Esenberg and the other via Emily Mills.

Interestingly, in their respective comments threads, Prof. Esenberg deleted one along the same lines as one that Ms. Mills let stand. The comments raise questions about Julaine Appling's own sexuality which, under any other circumstances, would be nobody's business except hers and not even remarkable.

But given her public notoriety as one of Wisconsin's highest-profile homo-obsessors, it's a matter of legitimate inquiry, at least. Esenberg wrote that the anonymous comment was "arguably defamatory." I don't know about defamatory, albeit the Shark is certainly entitled to administer his blog as he sees fit.

The comment at the Lost Albatross thread, on the other hand, leads here. Not quite anonymous, but not hard evidence either.

An outfit called the Maranatha Baptist Bible College has a "sermon" of Julaine Appling's archived at this link. But she objects to that description because, as she says, "I am not preaching, alright? I don't think that's an appropriate role for women."

If the rest of her remarks aren't preaching, then I don't know what preaching is. It's preaching related to the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment, in solicitation of support for which Appling claims "God in His Providence touched me very distinctly and said, 'This one's yours, Girl.' And He, by His Grace, has enabled me at this point to do what He has asked me to do."

Did you know that God doesn't write Bibles anymore, He writes State constitutional amendments, through His personal scribes.

Therewith begins a 20-odd minute ramble on the subject of Genesis Chapter Two, which Appling apparently takes literally, right down to the creation-by-rib and the divinely selected role of women as the "help meets" to men. If you're looking for scholarly Biblical exegesis, you won't find it there. What you will find is an entirely credulous, literal acceptance of allegorical Middle Eastern folklore.

I don't get the obsession with homosexuals, which seems to be a feature of both fundamentalist style Christianity and political conservatism. Personally I don't think about gay people too often. Christian conservatives will often tell you they aren't so much concerned with gay people per se, but rather their focus is on "homosexual acts."

Maybe that's why I'm not a conservative Christian because, trust me, homosexual acts are about the last things I care to focus on.* It makes little sense to me why self-proclaimed anti-homosexuals would want to focus on homosexual acts because the only people who should be focusing on homosexual acts are, well, homosexuals.

I don't recall having any opinion about homosexuals at all, aside from the usual high school tittering, until I read the late Graham Chapman's mostly hilarious autobiography many, many years ago.

I say mostly hilarious because it does contain at least one serious moment,** where Chapman discusses his own homosexuality. Why are two men in love the objects of so much opprobrium, Chapman wondered, when what's needed in the world is more love, not less. It made sense then, and it still makes sense now.

Wasn't the main Biblical character that Christians claim to follow all about the love, also? There's more than a little hypocrisy at work within these condemnations of homosexuality. And that hypocrisy just might be a manifestation of some deep closeting.

* The male configurations, at least.

** Apart from Keith Moon nearly falling off the side of a hotel attempting to retrieve a bottle of gin from the adjacent suite.

Angry Wisconsin left should be jubilant

And merry and gay even.

I noticed a number of my friends on the left were angered by the news that Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is withdrawing completely from defending the State's domestic partnership registry against a suit brought by Julaine Appling, a Madison spinster and bit of a nut.

They should be overjoyed, as anytime Walker's lawyers step the hell away from anything is a victory. They've done little more than create havoc and lawlessness since Walker became governor in January.

Appling attempted to have the Supreme Court hear her case (such as it is) directly in 2009, but the court declined. So Appling turned to a Dane County circuit court, which is where the action sits these days.

As Wisconsin has a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, Ms. Appling and her fellow travelers argue that the domestic partnership registry creates situations "substantially similar to marriage" and therefore violates the State constitution.

The law was, ahem, published under the previous Democratic administration and Republican attorney general J.B. Van Hollen refused to defend it, alluding to some religious scruples, so then-governor Jim Doyle hired the capable attorney Lester Pines.

The registries allow same-sex couples to take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill partner, make end-of-life decisions and have hospital visitation rights.

Yes, certainly those religious objections are understandable.

Scott Walker fired Lester Pines in March. Now he wants out of the case completely, which is great news. Some on the left are angry because Walker's refusal is yet another indication of his agenda to tear down whatever progress in social justice the domestic partnership registry represents. But this should come as no surprise.

Don't forget Scott Walker's running mate and now his lieutenant governor Rebecca Kleefisch, a fundamentalist Christian, on a fundamentalist Christian teevee station famously asked of the domestic registry, "Can we marry dogs? This is ridiculous."

So we already knew which Santorum-world this gang is coming from.

In the meantime Fair Wisconsin, an advocacy group specializing in these things, was granted intervening defendant status by the circuit court and will do just fine without Walker's attorneys' participation.

The less we hear from Scott Walker's lawyers the better.*

* Comic relief excepted.

P.S. Do not google Santorum.

Julaine Appling wants gays imprisoned

"What are you in for?" "Selling crack outside an elementary school. You?" "Coming home from getting married in San Francisco."

Julaine Appling, chief executive officer of the Wisconsin Family Council, said the statutes are clear and the law should be enforced.

"If it were challenged and the courts decided to basically wink at it, and refused to enforce [sic] the law, we have a problem," she said.

Good luck with that. The statutes Ms. Appling is referring to are meant to discourage bigamy or the marriage of first cousins except where one of the first cousins is a female over the age of 55 or where either first cousin is permanently sterile.

Whether the statutes would find application under the Wisconsin constitution's marriage amendment is an open question and in the unlikely event a prosecutor sought to enforce them, I expect lawyers would be lining up to offer pro bono defense. And winning.

Source.*

See also: "I think we’ve been extremely tolerant in allowing them to live wherever they choose" — Julaine Appling.

* Why can't reporters ever report the statutes they're reporting on? It's Wis. Stat. § 765.04(1) and the penalty is at § 765.30(1).

Rappin' with Appling

Julaine Appling that is, one of the fruitier nutcakes hovering at the furthest nut-right fringes of Wisconsin politics:

Thanks to an open records request, it's possible to note that a 36 minute call to [Appling's outfit, the Wisconsin Family Council] was placed from Koschnick's desk phone back on June 3 of '08. Whether or not the group will publicly endorse his run, it's certainly worth noting their interactions.

Just how nutty is Appling's fruitcakery? She wants otherwise peaceful, harmless, loving gay couples arrested and tossed in the county gaol.

With friends like these, etc.

More gruesome details via that indefatigable polymath, Emily Mills.

Jim Doyle: Antichrist or Pope?

If you listen to his adversaries, it's difficult to tell.

Julaine Appling, who is suing WI Gov. Jim Doyle over the alleged unconstitutionality of the State's domestic partnership provision, considers those opposed to her schemes to be "minions of Satan."

Meanwhile Ms. Appling's lead counsel Rick Esenberg, appearing on local public radio this morning, suggests the State of Wisconsin is making an attempt at "sanctifying in some sense" the partnerships.

This, evidently, in furtherance of the proposition that the domestic partnerships are "substantially similar" to marriage.

It may come as a rude surprise to many that the State is in the business of "sanctifying" in any sense any thing, least of all marriage.

But, for the sake of argument, if it really is the case that the State of Wisconsin does "sanctify in some sense" marriage and the domestic partnerships are conversely incapable of "sanctification,"* wouldn't that mitigate against a potential finding of "substantial similarity"?

Clearly. After all, it's Esenberg himself who opposes "toting up" the individual legal protections afforded by marriage versus domestic partnerships and reaching the substantial similarity determination in that manner, preferring instead a more "holistic" approach.

* They exist solely "for purposes [no] greater than the relationship itself and the self-directed needs of the individuals comprising it."

Or so we are reliably informed by both metaphysicians, Ms. Appling and Mr. Esenberg. Notably, well in advance of any such partnership having even been applied for or undertaken, let alone "sanctified."

Julaine Appling wants gays "charged" with fraud

Just the other day, Christian "Family" Crusader Julaine Appling wanted gays imprisoned. Now she wants them "charged with fraud" also, according to a Madison teevee station.

WKOW says a Verona, WI couple is planning on tying the knot in California next month. I guess the thing to do when you're a reporter covering a story like is this to solicit the comments of some nut:

"You purposely left the state for another state and you get married and you know it's not going to be legal where you reside and you have every intention of returning, that's defrauding the Government," Appling says.

Good grief, woman, get a grip.

I could just as easily make a physician's license out of some construction paper, crayons, and glue but nobody's going to "charge" me with fraud until I tried to cut somebody's appendix out.

Van Hollen recusal "strengthens our case"

According to Brian Raum, an Arizona lawyer from the Alliance Defense Fund* spirited in to battle Wisconsin gays:

"I certainly think it helps," he said. "The attorney general's opinion in regard to the [domestic partnership] registry's unconstitutionality may be a positive factor in helping the court to make a decision on this."

Mr. Raum had better familiarize himself with the case law here. There are a number of Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions which address the factors required to show "substantial similarity," and none of them includes for the private views of local politicians.

It won't even be a negative factor.

* "ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith." Except in this case, apparently, in which petitioner Julaine Appling presumes to limit the needs and purposes of gay couples:

The [amendment's] proponents argued that creation, official endorsement, and normalization of such a "look-alike" status would advance the notion that the purpose of forming a couple is more or less limited to the facilitation of the close relationship between, and the felt needs of, its members for as long as it exists, rather than for purposes greater than the relationship itself and the self-directed needs of the individuals comprising it.

The foregoing is pretty much the height of arrogance. As if there aren't already married couples who fail to meet Julaine Appling's extravagantly presumptuous "greater purposes" standards.

What's conspicuously missing from Appling's analysis is where exactly she gets off imposing her personal "family values" on everyone else.

There's only two ways courts operate

According to the illustrious Julaine K. Appling:

The ban on gay marriage will stay in place if justices stay away from any "personal agendas" and "interpret the law, and not make law," Appling said.

Or maybe the ban impermissibly contains two separate amendments: one pertaining to marriages and the other to civil unions. One needn't impose any "personal agenda" or make any new law to arrive at that conclusion. Because there's been plenty of law made already.

Earlier: Appling wants gays "charged" with fraud.

UW-Oshkosh professor a "minion of Satan"

It says so right here. The psych lit refers to these as delusions, occasionally coupled with the descriptive modifier, "paranoid."

Makes you wonder whether the interior decor at 222 S. Hamilton Street, Suite 24, Madison, WI 53703* features rubber wallpaper.

"Evil never takes a vacation," claims Julaine Appling, literally [sic] demonizing her political adversaries, always a compelling strategery.

Nevertheless and for whatever reasons, many Americans willingly accept the legitimization of this particular manner of delusion so long as it's accompanied by correct citation to Bible chapter and verse.

By the same means, Julaine Appling presents herself as a "minion of Jesus Christ," engaged in eternal struggle with the forces of Darkness and Evil. In the present instance, people who happen to be gay.

Charming, isn't it. No, not exactly. More like reprehensible.

* Appling v. Gov. Jim Satan and all His minions (.pdf; 17 pgs.).

It's the Hump Day of National Marriage Week

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has declared this to be National Newt Gingrich's Third Marriage Week. Blogger Jim Arndt has been celebrating the festivities. Scott Walker and his pals like (spinster) Julaine Appling revere the sacrament of marriage so ardently they helped pass a State constitutional amendment preventing a substantial cohort of Wisconsinites from enjoying its benefits.

Here are some of the couples that Walker, Appling, and their fellow travelers worked tirelessly to deny equal protection of the law:

Alicia Toby and Saundra Heath, who reside in Newark, have lived together for seventeen years and have children and grandchildren. Alicia is an ordained minister in a church ...

Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow reside in Union City and have been together for fourteen years. They both are pastors in the Episcopal Church.

Diane Marini and Marilyn Maneely were committed partners for fourteen years until Marilyn's death in 2005. The couple lived in Haddonfield, where Diane helped raise, as though they were her own, Marilyn’s five children from an earlier marriage.

Karen and Marcye Nicholson-McFadden have been committed partners for seventeen years. ... [T]hey are raising two young children conceived through artificial insemination, Karen having given birth to their daughter and Marcye to their son.

Suyin and Sarah Lael have resided together in Franklin Park for most of the sixteen years of their familial partnership. ... They live with their nine-year-old adopted daughter and two other children who they are in the process of adopting.

Cindy Meneghin and Maureen Kilian first met in high school and have been in a committed relationship for thirty-two years. They have lived together for twenty-three years in Butler where they are raising a fourteen-year-old son and a twelve-year-old daughter. Through artificial insemination, Cindy conceived their son and Maureen their daughter.

Recently, Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch in an interview with a fundamentalist Christian radio station likened gay couples to dogs.

Every argument that so-called "traditional marriage" proponents have presented to courts throughout the country has been debunked, leaving little else to their positions except homophobia and bigotry.

In America, religious adherents, who can switch or even reverse their sectarian affiliation at the drop of a hat, enjoy more heightened legal protections for their various beliefs than do those whose sexual orientation differs from the majority. That situation shouldn't stand.

Not quite full disclosure

Marquette University visiting professor of law Richard Esenberg, in the course of delivering an effusive bouquet to Bradley Foundation chairman Michael W. Grebe, helpfully notes:

By way of full disclosure, Bradley funds the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute and I have a relationship with them.

The WPRI is what's known as a conservative "think tank."

Now perhaps it depends on what one means by "full disclosure," I suppose, but what Prof. Esenberg deigns not to disclose is that the Bradley Foundation also donates generously to the Alliance Defense Fund and Esenberg has a relationship with them as well.

Esenberg's co-counsel on the case of Appling v. Doyle, a challenge to Wisconsin's domestic partnership law,* includes two ADF attorneys, Austin Nimocks and Brian Raum. Both lawyers hail from ADF HQ in Scottsdale, AZ, but presumably have an interest in Wisconsin affairs.

One indication of that interest may obtain from the title of a 2003 tome authored by the ADF's chairman, Alan Sears: The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. (The Homosexual Agenda was revealed to begin at 6 a.m. every day.)

Among the ADF's mottos is "Without Christ, we can do nothing."

The non-adherent is advised to bear the latter admonition in mind when considering offering oneself up as a potential ADF plaintiff.

Ms. Julaine Appling, who has long engaged in a frightful battle of wits against Satan and all of His minions, undoubtedly qualifies.**

This is easily available public knowledge, of course, but Prof. Esenberg's selective revelation doesn't appear to satisfy his own invocation of "full disclosure." They are the words he chose, after all.

Also worthy of helpful note is the fact that the Bradley Foundation recently forked over a check for $250K to The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, whose student division's deputy director*** turned up at the same law school faculty blog last week to distribute an edition of a FedSoc newsletter containing this comically antiseptic description of Mike Gableman's celebrated teevee spot:

The one television ad run by the challenger’s campaign drew national media attention for its aggressive tone.

Well, sure, that's one decidedly passive way of putting it. Another is to say it amounted to a statement deliberately misrepresenting the record of his political opponent, contrary to both the letter and the intent of Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule SCR 60.06(3)(c).

Yet another is to portray it bluntly as has the Wisconsin Judicial Commission: Gableman lied. Furthermore, the FedSoc employee in question failed to disclose his own whimsical shenanigans in service of none other than Mike Gableman and his political ambitions.

However, that's perfectly understandable, for a variety of reasons.

* Ain't it just so typical of those scheming liberals to short-circuit the democratic process and head straight into court. In this case, straight into the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the lower court finders of fact be damned (no pun intended; please see the following footnote).

** The named defendants being resistant to service of process, thus the selection of Gov. James Doyle et al as their corporeal stand-ins.

*** That is, a compensated FedSoc employee, not simply a member.

A judicial "conspiracy" over gay marriage

Julaine Appling of the Wisconsin Council on Families says it's a little conveeenient that an appellate court has asked the State Supreme Court to take up a case challenging the [same-sex marriage/civil union] ban, just days after Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson was re-elected to the bench.

The case is McConkey v. Van Hollen, and its procedural history is available here, along with a link to the court of appeals' certification to the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

The central question in this appeal is whether Article XIII, Section 13* of the Wisconsin Constitution, commonly known as the marriage amendment, was enacted in violation of the single-subject rule set forth in Article XII, Section 1** of the Wisconsin Constitution.

The District IV Court of Appeals in Madison passed that (and a related question of standing to sue) up the appellate food chain on Thursday.

The single amendment arguably contains two separate propositions, one pertaining to "marriage" and the other to "civil unions."

The reasoning behind the challenge rests on a claim that voters may have rejected gay "marriage" but left the door open for "civil unions" were they afforded the opportunity to make the distinction, except the amendment's language impermissibly conflated the two concepts.

It's a fair question.

Jack Lord only knows what "conspiracy" Julaine Appling is alleging.

Presumably it has something to do with her confidence that ex-Supreme Court candidate Randy Koschnick had already decided the question in advance (and she might have an argument there).

In any event, it's a constitutional matter. It's not a judicial referendum — or "conspiracy" — on the merits of gay marriage. The same inquiry would obtain from any similarly structured amendment to the Wisconsin constitution, regardless of its subject matter.

* Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

** [I]f more than one amendment be submitted, they shall be submitted in such manner that the people may vote for or against such amendments separately.

Julaine Appling changes her tune

As demonstrated by the redoubtable Emily Mills.

Among the legal claims forwarded by Ms. Appling's quartet of attorneys (two of whom are neither Wisconsin residents nor are they licensed to practice law here) is one that seeks to denigrate the relationships between potential "domestic partners" for failing to genuflect before "purposes greater than the relationship itself."

Evidence for the latter is said be found on a DVD produced by the "Family Research Institute" (formerly the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality — what was on their DVDs, I wonder).

It's a fascinating allegation, considering that under different circumstances, the political notion of "statism" — the idea that individuals should subjugate their self-interest to the collective goals of the nation — is anathema to so-called social conservatives.

Only when convenient, evidently.

"The result [of Appling's logic] is nonsense."

Been saying that for years meself now here's the Wis. Ct. App.

Thank God Darwin didn't invent gay sex

Only racism and slavery.

This summer I read the book Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots [by Ken Ham], which expertly outlines the dark roots and devastating consequences of evolutionary thought.

— Julaine Appling

Racist roots = dark roots. Well played.



Expertness, for experts. And it's absolutely astonishing, is it not, that somebody might have misconstrued a good and useful idea and put it to nefarious use. That's just never happened, before or since.

Ugh, stick good, make fire. Ugh, stick bad, hit over head with. Ugh, maybe stick neutral, me give contingent meaning.

If non-whites are descendants of Ham, why is there still (Ken) Ham?

— internets wag

Sanctity of traditional marriage update

"My family and I, we do this all the time."

Dad's first reaction is to make sure there's no puke on his shoes. His next is to get back to the interview after that annoying interruption.

Let the missus mop it up: "I'm so glad my wife was born in Japan."

So remind me, once again, who it is exactly that is "undermining the 'conjugal model' of marriage":

[The people of Wisconsin] intended to prohibit the creation of a marital-like status for relationships that, while similar in some ways, differ from marriage in ways that will, over time, alter key cultural and legal components of marriage stemming from the unique nature of opposite-sex relationships and, therefore, undermine the "conjugal model" of marriage.

Petition to Take Jurisdiction of Original Action at 21, Appling v. Doyle, No. 2009AP001860* (Wis. July 23, 2009).

Oh, right, it's those darn gays.

* Why is lead counsel's address still listed as Marquette University Law School? That should have been corrected a long time ago.

Wisconsin's top right-wing blogger announces

[Flourish]

I disagree with this ruling. [snip MSNBC (!!!) reporting] It is not a right for your marriage to be recognized by the state.

What is Wisconsin's top right-wing blogger's point, I have no idea, because the court never said there was any such right. But seeing as the invalidated California proposition reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," then our top right-wing blogger should find it unconstitutional as well, no?

After all, according to his claims, not even the opposite marriage people have any right to expect their nuptial consummations to be recognized by the State.

Indeed, you'd think that would be the politically conservative position, where the State (and in parallel, the state, but the Defense of Marriage Act is another question) interferes at only the bare administrative minimum in the private and consensual domestic arrangements of individual Americans.

Nobody, to my knowledge, has empowered any State (and certainly not the federal government) to draw an arbitrary line somewhere along the continuum of sexual orientation or gender (or "race" or ethnicity or religion, the latter of which is chosen) for those administrative purposes.

And when I say arbitrary, I mean that as the most charitable compliment that might be mustered as to the quality of the Proposition 8 proponents' evidence. Some of their testimony relied on that rentboy guy, other of it on "the internet." (The latter proponent also jabbered about Satan, which, let's face it, was to be expected. That's the sort of hocus-pocus that drives their arguments.* Wisconsin's leading marriage expert Julaine Appling, anyone?)

The top blogging continues:

There is a right to marry, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Yes, that's precisely what we're talking about here and the judge's opinion could not have made clearer its distinguishing between the creation of novel rights and the simple recognition of existing ones.

The top blogger has it exactly backwards. This case is not about the State of California's recognizing a right to marry. This case is about the State of California's refusal to recognize that right. Even more to the point, the State of California's affirmative denial of that right.

And it cannot so refuse and at the same time be in compliance with the 14th Amendment, which maybe the top blogger should read.

Along with the opinion, and not some MSNBC-generated** syllabus.

h/t WisOpinion, which aggregates the views of "opinion leaders."

* And those of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if I'm not mistaken.

** Bonus irony.

But what if you have twins?

Breastfeeding is a natural, healthy act that should be allowed in public when done discretely. — Julaine Appling

h/t Steve Hanson.

So this is why they oppose Wisconsin's gay couples

Julaine Appling is a never-married single woman who’s lived for many years with Diane Westphall, another never-married single woman. The two currently share a home they own together in Watertown, WI, and they also work side by side at WFA.

— ???