|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A federal judge in San Francisco is scheduled to rule today on whether Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, violates the U.S. Constitution.
The case before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has been the nation’s first federal trial on a U.S. constitutional challenge to a state law prohibiting gay marriage.
A previous five-year battle over same-sex marriage in California centered on the state rather than federal constitution.
The federal trial pits two same-sex couples who want to marry against the sponsors of Proposition 8 and their campaign committee, ProtectMarriage.com.
The measure was enacted as a state constitutional amendment by California voters in 2008 and provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Walker heard evidence in the nonjury trial in January, presided over closing arguments in June and, according to a court spokeswoman, will file a decision between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. today.
Both sides have said Walker’s court is only the first stop and that they will appeal if they lose, first to a federal appeals court in San Francisco and then likely to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In fact Proposition 8’s sponsors filed a motion late Tuesday asking him to stay his ruling if he decides to strike down the ban while they appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Proposition 8 attorney Charles Cooper argued in the filing that the sponsors are likely to win on appeal and that allowing same-sex marriage in the interim would cause confusion and uncertainty.
Cooper wrote, “Another purported window of same-sex marriage in California would cause irreparable harm.”
The last window of same-sex marriage in the state occurred between June 2008, when a California Supreme Court ruling allowing gay weddings under the state Constitution went into effect, and Nov. 4, 2008, when voters approved Proposition 8.
About 18,000 same-sex couples married during that time, and the state high court left those marriages in place at the same time that it upheld voters’ right to enact Proposition 8 in a decision in May 2009.
Chris-don’t feel sorry for the family-it was all insurance fraud. The Greenbergs and the Zuffa’s were connected in another real estate transaction years ago in San Ramon which also went belly up just not as far as burning yourself in a fire. If you would have followed the story from the very beginning you would have known not to feel bad for them
What about the people who were unfortunate enough to donate money toward this woman? Donate money to a meth cooker (sorry, don’t know the technical term) who burned herself in a fire? Talk about overly compassionate! These people should get their money back.
Sorry Ms. Zuffa that most of your skin melted off, but maybe you shouldn’t have been up to no good.
I agree that the boys are the true victims here. Although, I won’t hear any of this “Mr. Zuffa had nothing to do with this” stuff. Just because theres not enough evidence to charge someone, doesn’t mean that they were oblivious to what was going on. He knew…
How dare I? Are you wagging your finger at me too? So you ASSUME he is innocent, and I assume differently. You weren’t there and neither was I so how can you say for certain that he is truely innocent. I will only stop this conversation out of respect for the children. Although, I would love to keep debating this with you. How can you keep pulling heart strings with the facts of their tragedy and losses, and ignore the details of what and how she did the crime. There is no way she could have came up with the idea, and plan it, and then execute it, without him knowing. He couldn’t have been totally ignorant to her actions.
Hey PW maybe you can put some pressure on the DA. Last time I checked they were elected to there position.
USCGPACSTRIKE writes:
“Doo Doo… Believe it! If I saw you in person I’d do more than wag my finger at you. It’s people like you that make trouble for innocent victims. ”
Coast Guard do-gooder now threatens posters who disagree with perhaps VIOLENCE. Besides not wagging fingers you will do……. Let’s hear what it is, oh protector of freedom of speech.
Here is another strange aspect to this story. The house on 839 E. Angela St was listed last week in the Valley Times in the public notices in the Trustee Sale. The house listed Keith Zuffla as sole owner and the opening amount on the Trustee sale was somewhere around $815,000.
Can someone please direct me to the original article regarding this? I am confused… Who, when, and how did the fire start? where And when did the meth cooker story get twisted into this story? Seems that people are assuming that where fraud and fire are involved … so are drugs?
why would anyone pay more than $75,000 for it? That’s how the foreclosure auction works….
“In a weak market the foreclosing party may set the starting price at a lower amount if it believes the real estate securing the loan is worth less than the remaining principal of the loan.”
Curious..Is the notice listing Mr. Z as the OWNER or the SELLER of 846 EAngela?
There is a property up for auction on 4/27/2010:
Sale Date: 4/27/2010
Sale Time: 12:30 PM
Date Entered: 4/9/2010
Trustor: Keith A Zuffa
Trustee: Recontrust Company, N.A.
Sale Location: 1225 Fallon Street Oakland
Beneficiary: Bac Home Loans Servicing, Lp
“These public records might be misleading. I think in 1998, this house could be worth 400k instead of 236k. ”
It was a family transaction in 1998 (seller was Joseph Zuffa), so the buyer (Keith Zuffa…) paid what they paid regardless of market value.
After that, there were many re-finances through financial institutions, and at some point the Greenbergs got involved.
The records are not misleading. This happens often when a son buys a house from his parents and pays less than market value, it is not uncommon and it is what makes it hard for sites like Zillow to give an accurate “appraisal” based on sales (many sales are not really sales but transfer of property in the family for very low prices)
It should be noted that Judge Walker is gay.
So if the ruling turned out for the bigots who want Prop 8 upheld and the judge was straight, it would be relevant?
Get off your high horse. The ruling turned out the way it did because it was the right thing! Bigots might as well start getting used to the idea that the world is changing, whether it pleases their little narrow selfish brains or not!
So if you think it’s such a big deal that he’s gay, then in your mind all straight judges cannot be fair and unbiased when presiding over trials involving male and female couples. Give me a break.
I went to an amazing rally today and spoke to wonderful people. Everyone was sharing stories about family members who are now considered their equal. How in the world could anyone be against that? And please don’t talk about the “sanctity of marriage”. If you truly believe that, you should be actively working to outlaw divorce in California because that is doing much more harm to marriage.
I can’t wait to tell my children about this day!
And by the way, the gay judge that you mentioned was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
I love it!!!
This is such a stupid issue, how much money has been wasted on it. The church can define and recognize whatever marriages it would like to, likewise so can the state.
I wonder how many of the illegal immigrants living in the CA are gay…tee hee hee, tee hee hee…
lemme see…about 9%!