you need to know this over the next two days the supreme court will hear oral arguments some half of them today have them tomorrow in two cases concerning the legality of same sex marriage many and how today went and tomorrow goes the court could endorse marriage as a fundamental right enshrined in the constitution they could confirm the rights of states to deny gay couples marriage licenses or they could avoid making a decision altogether stakes have never been higher today the justices listen to arguments in the case of hollingsworth the very central question hollingsworth a very deep areas whether or not a two thousand eight gala for new ballot measure the define marriage as a male female union violates the basic constitutional rights of citizens of california the supporters of that measure proposition eight argue that because marriage as traditionally been understood as a heterosexual partnership the ballot vote did not infringe on any inherent rights in short they want states to have the power to decide the legality of same sex marriage for the. wells the opponents of prop eight

rullo, we're ce pleased to have presented their case to the supreme court today. it has been the culmination of a long an amazing journey and we are thankful, so thankful for ted olson and david boyce. we are really looking forward to this court decision, thank you. >> sandy and i would like to introduce you to our -- two of our sons, eliot and perry. >> name is spencer perry and this is my twin brother elliot and we ar two of chris and sandfy's very proud sons. i just want to say how incredibly proud we are of our parents. we love them. we love our family and we look forward to the day when we will be treated equally just like our neighbors families. thank you so much. [applause] dave and and i will be willing to answer some questions but it is very important to introduce chad griffin of the human rights campaigner who has been with this case right from the beginning, right from the very start a parallel he recruited me and together we recruited david boyce to handle this case. it has been almost four years since a brief filed the case and 4.5 years has since we f

supreme court. captioning by vitac, underwritten by fireman's fund >>> good evening. i'm scott shafer. welcome to this week in northern california. next tuesday, more than four years after california voters approved proposition 8, the state's ban on same-sex marriage, it gets a hearing from the u.s. supreme court. it will hear arguments for the defense of marriage act known as doma. we discuss the issues before the u.s. supreme court. it's the final stop on a long and winding legal road. let's begin with a look at how it all started. the week of valentine's day, 2004, newly elected san francisco mayor gavin newsom, boldly, some said recklessly orders to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. >> we reignited a fundamental debate. >> scott: outside city hall, gays and lesbians lines up around the block. about 4,000 couples tied the knot. it was not to last. at the urging of then governor schwarzenegger, the supreme court stopped the marriages. over the years, it snaked its way through the judici

supreme court. ght outside the court, where the argument on prop 8's ban on same-sex marriage began in the last hour. audio recordings will be released this afternoon. demonstrations began early in the morning, and people for and against marriage equality mamped for the supreme court giving speeches right there on the steps. >> i feel a moral obligation to advocate more marriage equality. >> marriage equality for all. marriage equality for all. marriage equality for all. >> one woman, one man. children need a mother and father. >> only marriage between a man and a woman can connect children to their mother and father and their parents to the children. >> today's case is formally known as hollingsworth versus perry. the question is whether california violated the constitution when it passed proposition 8. it has wide reaching implications, it could potentially up-end marriage bans across the country. >> we call on this court today to simply do your job. there are no second class citizens in america, a

olson and boies are finally at the steps of the supreme court. >> just walking into the supreme courtre the justices, for a lawyer there's nothing like it. >> you'll hear arguments this morning in case 1244, holingsworth versus perry. mr. olson? >> thank you, mr. chief justice. may it please the court -- >> at first, the justices seem cautious, questioning whether now is the right time and if the supreme court is the right place to make a decision on same-sex marriage. starting with justice alito. >> same-sex marriage is very new. but you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the internet? >> then came the zinger from justice scalia. >> i'm curious, when it did become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? >> when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? >> don't give me a question to my question. >> and justice kagan challenges the opposing argument that marriage is about having children. >> suppose a state said, because we think that the foc

california over the four years, all the way here to washington today before the united states supreme court. and we are all cautiously optimistic as we wait and see what this court will do. >> also joining us, austin mimics, could counsel for the legal team defending the ban against same-sex marriage and los angeles mayor, antonio via r villarigosa. good morning, i'm john cillizza, andrea mitchell is traveling today. nbc's justice correspondent, pete williams joins us from in front of the supreme court. pete, i can't think of anyone i would rather hear from. i know you were in the room talking about this. listening to the arguments, analyzing the arguments, tell us what we need to know out of what you heard today. >> right, you know there was a lot of talk before the case about whether this would be the roev wade of gay rights, with all the positives and negatives of that. it's quite clear now that it's not going to be. that the supreme court, there's very little interest among any of the justices for the kind of sweeping ruling that the two couple who is brought this case were asking for.

supreme court. [applause] >> go ahead. david. >> those of you who were in court today, saw why i like it better when this guy is on my side as opposed to against me. we had a thoughtful hearing. we appreciate the attention to this issue. we appreciate the preparation of all the justices. there was a number of thoughtful and tough questions to both sides. it is now in the hands of the supreme court. it has been a long journey here for the last three and half years. i think we're all greatly encouraged that we're within a few months of a final decision on this terrible important case. i think the most remarkable thing that happened in there, was there was no attempt to defend the demands on gay and lesbian marriage. there was no indication of any harm. all that was said is this important constitutional right ought to be decided at the state level as opposed to the federal government. but because of the federal constitution we have and it is the federal government constitution that defends everyone's rights. now we're down to

other people decide the solicitor general control of the government presentation to the supreme court. the petitions to file, what responses to file, oral argument in the solicitor general also decides in the government will appeal an adverse decisions by district court or the court of appeals. the solicitor general has authority to decide when a federal they meet the eye and the supreme court or court of appeals. it's a broad portfolio that requires a large base of knowledge plus the ability to learn fast. the solicitor general does not control with y and doesn't start the process within the justice department feared cases that a writer for out to litigating division civil, criminal and thÉrÈse, and grants a natural resource and environment. then make recommendations, which go to the assistance. sometimes there's an internal conflict. the department of justice include the criminal division and those people always want to defend guards and seized their presence. sublimates divisions tends to favor and somebody has to resolve those on assistant to the solicitor general may think the cr

supreme court. this past valentine's day, gay couples demanded marriage licenses at san francisco city hall as they have every year since 2004. they were turned away. >> it affects us in so many ways in our every day life. what we want is to be treated fairly. >> scott: i spoke with lieutenant governor gavin newsom recently about what compelled him to take a leading role in the gay marriage debate nine years ago. >> thanks for having me. >> scott: take us back to 2004. the marriage licenses began to be issued in san francisco. you had just gotten into office. what got into you? >> i went to the state of the union. nancy pelosi made a terrible mistake by giving me her husband's ticket to watch the state of the union. i was listening to the issues of the day. abstinence and drug testing. he would fulfill his private commitments now made public to ban same-sex marriage. it occurred to me at that moment that we had to respond as mayor of san francisco, it was an obligation. >> scott: you just decided, i

the supreme court of the united states today has no protestants on the supreme court. isn't that interesting? we basically have catholics and jews. >> i have been very worried about that, i will tell you. [laughter] >> i mentioned it because i thought it was keeping you up at night. the fact is that i have no doubts that they each will do what they said in their nomination, which is they would apply the law, and what justice roberts said is really probably a similar statement. judges are supposed to call balls and strikes. that does not mean that they don't understand -- as a matter of fact, why do you have a diverse jury? the appellate court is just another type of jury, right? the supreme court is a very different kind of jury because the supreme court, and having only had one case before them, i learned very quickly that president -- precedent is not as important as the justices, who will decide what the law is. they will change what the lot is if they get a majority of their sisters and brothers to go along with it. to have a jury made up of diverse cultural views

boston presented an ideal opportunity for this contrast to reach the supreme court. the district judge and court of appeals held explicitly that racial imbalance in the schools was itself a constitutional wrong and that the appropriate remedy was therefore to order that every class in the system had the same ratio black and white students. the required a lot of transportation. but the real issue is the goal and not the means. many asked them to support the school board and to tell the supreme court to reverse. at bob's direction i wrote a brief contending that the proper goal is to undo the consequences of official racial discrimination, not to undo the consequences of private choice. bald held a customary meeting to hear all views. these became known in the press and the attorney general took an interest. here's the problem, the school board engaged in contempt of court by defying some aspects of the district court injunction and many residents of boston had engaged in violence. the supposedly liberal city had begun to act like little rock in 1958 and the mayor was s

you're looking at a live shot outside the supreme court. le have started to make their way into the court, lining up as early as last week to get one of the coveted public seats that are offered to hear these cases in real time. the courts of course later will be releasing the audio. no cameras are allowed. our coverage begins here on c- span at 1:00 p.m., and you can also listen on radio with the three -- the free app through your smartphone if you go to our web site at c-span.org. david savage is here on set with us. let me begin with today's court case. what is proposition 8, and how did it make its way to the court? guest: it is a long story. it goes over 10 years. some people in california sued, tried to win same-sex marriage. they want a book for the california supreme court in 2008. before the california supreme court in 2008. then add the was a proposition put before the voters to say that marriage would be limited between a man and woman. that passed by 52% in 2008. andar after that, ted olson david boys decided to challenge it and

with some of the comments from both sides today. >> reporter: tori, several justices on the supreme court questioned whether or not those who challenged prop 8 have the authority to do so. the court appears to be divided on same sex marriage and the justices do have the option of dismissing this case without making a ruling. while all this was going on inside the court, those of us outside got an earful from the crowd. >> what do we want? >> equality. >> when do we want it? >> now. >> reporter: hundreds of supporters of gay marriage protested outside the supreme court. [ people chanting ] as justices heard oral arguments inside. one attorney told justices prop 8 is unconstitutional. >> it is not consistent with the ideals and the laws and the constitution of this country to take our gay and lesbian pros and sister -- brothers and sisters and put them in a class and deny them rights we give this everyone else. >> reporter: but attorneys for the other side say that the decision should be left up to voters. >> the place for the decision to be made regarding redefining marriage is with the pe

supreme court. >> the supreme court hearing has a something they have been waiting for for a very long time. >> it means a lot because even if the decision does not feel our way the nation has changed. the art is coming >> it is important for faith organizations. scott rates, kron 4 news. >> coming up on to another big story. an 11-month old girl, taken in the back seat of a stolen car, is safe tonight. the amber alert cancelled. police discovered baby gabriela hours later in the abandoned s-u-v. tonight -- the suspect is still on the loose. kron 4's j-r stone spoke with the police officer who found the baby. police say, the girl's mother, graciella, noticed a woman who she thought was suspicious. near her car shortly before it was stolen. she described the woman as white or hispanic and in her 30s, wearing a dark top and dark pants. >> this officer abroad with the child to the hospital and then was reunited. >> she was crying but then she was very excited to see her mother. she was very emotional it was a bit traumatic for her. >> police say the woman was a thought that she was suspic

supreme court, equal justice under law. our family is waiting for that promise to be fulfilled for the next generation. for my mom and dad, they want nothing more than for me and john to be able to be the glee married in all 50 states, just as they were. >> thank you both for being with us. we will continue on this issue in the next break. john lewis and stuart gaffney together for 26 years, married in 2008 before prop. 8 passed. both work at marriage equality usa. when we come back, we will be joined by the widow or of the late congress member gerry studds, openly gay congress member, his widower is not able to get the normal pensions and other widows or widowers of congress members get. we will talk to him about today supreme court argument. stay with us. ♪ [music break] >> this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. for the second and a row, the supreme court confronting the issue of same-sex marriage. today, doma. it was signed into law by president clinton in 1996 and denies f

does the right thing if the supreme court blows up. do you and somebody lives in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage but they get married in a state that. will be able to file federal tax returns no married couple no and i you know if you get married in the state that has marriage right now you still can't file federal taxes merge. but that's because that's because you don't know right so you are really restricted to whatever benefits you get in this state that you got married in maryland maryland law outside of maryland there's no protections for you joe thank you both thank you for. the talk more about today's supreme court hearing and its potential outcomes in tonight's lone liberal rumble coming up after the break. let me let me respond will let me ask you a question. here and this is what we're going to be we have. to do this with us today staying there together here in this race we're being talked about surveillance. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so silly you think you understand it and then you glimpse

supreme court. we are not an experiment. we are a civil rights movement. i hope they come down on the right side of history guess it is not a matter of if we will be able to marry. this a matter of when will issue be solved. we will eventually because the public is on our side. i thank you. .> that his robin this is diane. her south -- her spouse. she is the granddaughter of a former governor of california. filed an amicus in this case. in the perry case that was heard this morning. i filed it on behalf of the women's rights legal defense and education fund. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> please identify yourselves, each, and make sure you faced the camera. >> my name is charles cooper. i represent the parties -- the parties and their lawyers have now litigated this case for almost four years. thelly, to this point, case as you have seen was presented to the court. penetrating measured questions on both sides and now it is in the hands of the court. we are looking forward to hopefully a promp

the supreme court will hear a multibillion dollar case between the drug industry and federal regulators. the high courts will weigh in on the pay for delay deals. where large phrma pays the genetic competitors to keep the lower cost products off the market for as long as possible. it undermines consumers by denying them low cost alternatives. it shows brand name drugs add $3.5 billion annually to the cost of drugs >>> 4:48. the president and first lady will mark the beginning of passover tonight at the white house. the jewish holiday begins at dusk tonight. the first family will host the annual white house sadre dinner from family, staff and friends. it was first started during president obama's 2008 campaign. it is 4:48. there is still hope an ncaa title can come to the bay area but it is up to the ladies to get the job done. >>> the winter of the oakland marathon says he is disappointed with the finish. >>> we're looking over here opposite side of the bay, 101, palo alto moves very smoothly. we will talk about the south bay, the slowing i saw and a warning as you are crossing the bay.

my guest tonight she's a former supreme court justice, was the first woman to serve on our supreme court. the new book is called out of order, stories from the history of the supreme court. please welcome back to the program justice sandra day o'connor. nice to see you. >> glad to be here. >> jon: the book is called "out of order." what was your purpose in this book, in putting this particular book together? >> telling the stories about how the court works and giving people a glimpse into some of the things. >> jon: it's hard to imagine the pressure that a justice might feel when you are dealing with as we talked about earlier some of the biggest issues of our day. >> yes. >> jon: of racism and discrimination and the franchise. >> right. >> jon: does that weight -- do you feel that when you are deciding those cases? >> you certainly do because you really want to make the correct decision and bring some order out of our various statutes and constitutional provisions and the pris precedence of the court itself. it's hard sometimes. >> jon: you wrote brown versus board of education may be t

supreme court showdown. hundreds who gathered for the occasion came from all over the country. >> i'm gay and i want to have these rights. i believe even if i wasn't, i would want equal rights for all of us. >> we brought 30 buss from the new york organization, from queens, bronx, new jersey to just voice and tell everyone that every child should have a father and a mother. >> reporter: many of those favoring same sex marriage were couples including robert and michael, together for 34 years. >> so many rights that we don't have access to under the law without the rights to marry. fortunately in new york we now have a marriage right. but it doesn't transfer to the federal level. >> reporter: but many supporters of proposition 8 who marched today said it was not about denying rights. sean is from new york. >> i believe that marriage is really in the context of family and children. that's its primary purpose. that's what the definition should be. they're not hateful people. but they just believe something that

that's what we're asking the supreme court to do. >> so, for a victory for you uld be for them to throwve this to be settled along the court of public opinion, among politicians, among communities themselves? >> well, not necessarily throw out the case. we believe the supreme court should rule that marriage, union of one man and one woman, is constitutional and that question was asked in the courtroom today when did marriage become unconstitutional? and our opponents could not answer that question. we believe the supreme court should uphold marriage and right of americans to uphold marriage and up hold it in public policy and leave the debate on same-sex marriage to the he leelected representatives. we don't not supreme court to rule the same-sex marriage is the law of the land. >> anything you heard in arguments that made you optimistic perhaps? >> we remain optimistic about what the supreme court should do and what we're asking it to do. the optimism stems from the fact the court was endagaged in the debate. they asked important and probing questions. we're satisfied with the argument

the supreme court, a sea of people lined up to witness history. inside the court, the nine justices weighing in on the explosive issue of same-sex marriage. >> today, the supreme court is examining the definition of marriage. the justices heard oral arguments in a case challenging california's proposition 8 that amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. >> what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite sex couples, how does the cause and effect work? >> supporters say it serves a vital interest and voter should vote on this. >> we believe proposition eight is constitutional and the place for the decision to be made regarding redefining marriage is with the people, not with the courts. >> the plaintiffs in the case, two california couples say the law violates gays and lazy babies right to equal protection. >> from the beginning the case has been about securing the right to marry the opinion i love and having equal access to the most important relationship i know in life which is marriage. >> attitudes are changing rapidly. a

marked -- marc solomon was at the supreme court to hear the arguments wednesday and a challenge to theonstitutionality to the defense of marriage act. about the significance of that interaction and what the court was light yesterday. >> sure. that interaction in particular was justice elena kagan highlighting the fact this law was created out of discrimination. it was really the first time the federal government has created its own sort of definition of marriage to exclude gay people because they're really afraid or congress was afraid of progress on the marriage front in hawaii. >> talk about this document. >> it was a house report that accompanies legislation. there is a report that talks about the purpose of the legislation. it is very clear in talking about moral disapproval of homosexuality. so it is pretty hard to get away from that. >> there were gasps in the room and she asked the question? >> yes. it was a reminder of where this law comes from and what its purpose is, and it is simply to deny loving, committed, same-sex couples who are married the federal government's huge pro

massive crowds outside of the supreme court. to have their voices heard. for did temperatures and snow did not matter, the lineup of people waiting outside the u.s. supreme start court continues to grow. this is all its is the supreme court justices take of same-sex marriage. tuesday same-sex matted marriages from california are chosen proposition 8. proposition 8 ban same-sex marriage. california voters approved a ban. the challenge is argue the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection. they're defining marriage as only between man and woman violates the equal rights. according to a cnn poll done this last weekend, a majority of americans support gay marriage. more politicians are shifting their stance. a high and republican senator, rob portman. >> my son came to my wife and i am told us he was gay. that wants an answer is in process for me. it was rethinking my position. >> could personal experience also play a role in decision time on the bench? in the audience will be jean per-d from san francisco. she is just as john robe

supreme court. ktvu's kyla campbell is live in front of the supreme court building in washington, d.c., where she's running into a lot of people who traveled from the bay area to witness this historic moment. kyla? >> reporter: yeah, they are part of the crowds getting larger and bigger by the moment. we're hearing musing, chapting, yelling -- chanting and yelling. check out this sign i just got from a crowd walking by the street heading up hundreds of people against gay marriage, heading up to the supreme court. they are meeting their match because the cowt up there -- the crowd up there is mostly in support of gay marriage. hundreds of marchers heading to the supreme court. we'll see a lot of people from both sides of the gay marriage ban here today. a lot of those people in support of gay marriage are from california. they've been playing some music and dancing and having a good time this morning. a lot of people say they wanted to get inside but only 250 to 300 seats were available. they want to

today, it took stage at the british supreme court. ssue is whether a california band will be up held or struck down. for those outside the court, the symbolism goes much deeper. >> in glorious technicolor and provocative language, the culture wars are back. supporters and opponents of gay marriage facing off outside of the highest court. some had waited 4 days hoping to witness history from the inside. some argued. >> you are causing pain to people like joey harris. that is what you are doing.

on the morning of march 18th, the decision was announced from the supreme court. they said justice black said i have an announcement the decision and opinion of the court gideon against -- vindication for 20 years of dissent from -- against brady. they said we were wrong when we designed it and now we are making it right. >> it was complete. not only did this belief in the 14th amendment, the court decide d in gideon's favor. this system which he fought for so long in the justice. the decision was law of the land. equal justice under law. >> when a supreme court decided the gideon case, they really brought light to that phrase. it doesn't matter if you are rich, it doesn't matter if you are poor, you get the same equal chance. >> just look at what happened to gideon. the supreme court didn't set gideon free but it gave him a fair trial with a competent attorney. >> not guilty. >> clarence earl gideon was a free man. the man who won a landmark supreme court case went to live a normal living with a job pumping gas. >> when i read where it says equal justice under law

in the supreme court.e but a bit uncomfortable on being here with this decision. >> pam: what is the role of politics and all of this? public opinion? >> there are nine different justices from different presidents is, different backgrounds but they are not blind and dumb. they watch the news. they watch the development of society. and i think that the majority of the americans are supporting same-sex marriage. some prominent republicans what should the administration say? dick cheney? >> pam: meg whitman? >> exactly. >> are they going to be getting ahead of public opinion or they going to be able for the state to decide? >> pam: to percolate? >> it was one from president obama it was a bit surprising dodamayer.. >> and what happened going forward from today and the month of june. are they going to have a meeting? >> those nine different justices. they will have a conversation and they will have the votes. that vote will tell us whoever is in the majority will have the most senior justice. he/she. and anoth

today's supreme court hearings will affect you. make you feel knowing you can be mayor of new york city and be denied federal marriage benefits? >> you know, the being mayor part of that has nothing to do with anything. but waking up every day in a country where your sexual orientation puts you in a position where you have less rights, fewer rights than somebody else is actually a very painful thing. i mean lbgt americans are full citizens. we're full contributing parts of this country. and all we want is the same rights and responsibilities as everybody else. all we want is the laws of this country to do what the laws of the state of new york have done. wrap their arms around all families and say that we all matter. we all love each other, we're all just trying to get through the day supporting each other. edie winsor's case that i know you guys have been running a story on, tells that story. two women loved each other for decades. when one got sick, edie took care of her until she died. and then after that tragic death. the feder

back to your calls on your view on the supreme court. missouri.rom caller: i would like it called chuck schumer. this is his court. host: why do you say that? caller: why you say it is his host: court he is the head of the judiciary committee and he had to approve every one of them. i would like to know what his opinion is and how the court might vote. i hope it stays as a marriage between man and woman. i appreciate you taking my call. host: john is in maine. you are on "washington journal." you that fanatics on both sides. bothu have got fanatics on sides. if you got a good lawyer presenting the case, no matter what party elected the judges, if you have a good attorney he is going to convince those judges no matter what. that is how it works. if it becomes a real hot potato i suspect the judges will throw it back to the state. ofhink it's in the bill rights where the states have their own constitutions seperate from the government. that last part of a case about , thereancing, obama care it shows impartiality. a column from both sides,

given that history, what the supreme court decides on prop 8 and the defense of marriage act as well h will be considered tomorrow, could have political implications stretching far beyond gays and lesbians who want to marry. brian silva. suppose court comes out with a narrow decision. looks like they're headed toward basically shooting down, chopping down, getting rid of prop 8. you can get married in california if you're the same sex. what's that going to -- is that going to energize the right? >> yeah, i think that so many people on the right have already moved into the pro-marriage equality camp that i think that that number of folks -- >> who are these people? >> senator rob portman -- >> you're naming one or two. come on. so many on the right. come on. >> you've got an amicus brief signed by so many prominent republicans they filed with the supreme court. >> which republican candidate last time was for same-sex marriage? >> none of them -- >> which one in history? ever? >> mitt romney i guess at one point in massachusetts was for marriage equality then he was against it. >> see m

supreme court? 1890, right? >> very possibly, your honor, yes, very possibly. >> and how's this different? nothinghonor, this is like the, for example, the racial restrictions at issue in loving where there is simply no legitimate rational basis whatsoever on any purpose of marriage that one could possibly conceive to deny the right of a mixed race couple to marry. on every basis on which one can identify a purpose of marriage, a mixed race couple satisfied those purposes. so the question is -- >> you suggest that baker would mandate that the state has an absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relationship between its own citizens should be created, correct? >> not an absolute right, your honor. we agree that that right is limited by whatever restrictions the united states constitution may place on it. v.ok, so then loving virginia falls right into that restriction? >> directly, your honor, and the supreme court in loving said that the racial restriction violated the central meaning o

a supreme court ruling could do a few things. it could clear the way for same-sex marriage in every state of the union. or it could do so for some states. or it could do that for no states at all. or it could decide to do nothing at all. the arguments began last hour and they should be winding down shortly and we could see the opposing parties come streaming out of those doors of that building in just minutes. this is a live picture. and by the way, outside the court is shannon travis and he's surrounded by a lot of voices and a lot of people. when i say a lot of people, i'm not exaggerating. there are forces for and against. they have had to be core doned in to areas for keep the order and there is an additional security presence, too, right? >> reporter: absolutely. you mentioned the arguments inside the court. there are loud arguments outside the court here, protesters for and against same-sex marriage want to give you a sense of what we've been looking at. look across the street there. there is the capitol in the background d