the plaintiff may not be a professional plaintiff. that does not make any difference. the defense has been tried in court. is a civil rights statute. -- it is a civil rights statute. they can be a perfectly legitimate plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit, and there are a number of people who belong to disability organizations that actually, that is what their livelihood is, bringing these lawsuits. the gentleman over here, who was also a lawyer knows of at least one case involving two lawsuits. they started all neighborhoods. the target places like san francisco because this is an old city with old buildings, virtually none of which comply. we only have new construction that would be billed to 1988 compliance standards, usually. whatever kind of business you have, the building part does not enforce ada compliance. you have your architect look at the ada if you are going to make a major revision anyway. is very expensive to do that. the demand letter is a requirment for the state -- is a requirement for the state laws to be brought. for civil rights cases, you are expected to k

judges said they were responsible for the poisoning, but they said the plaintiffs couldn't collect damages because their claim was made more than 20 years after the incident. >>> i'm disappointed and angry at the ruling. >> the ruling virtually tells the plaintiffs they should have filed suit before they were recognized as victims of the oil poisoning. the verdict demands something that's impossible. >> reporter: the plaintiffs say they'll appeal. they'll have to wait longer to find out whether they'll get any compensation. nhk world. >>> >>> 31 years ago next month, britain and argentina went to war over a group of islands in the south atlantic ocean. the british controlled the falkland islands, but the argentines claimed them and called them the maldines. they invaded but surrendered after a short but bloody battle. the end of the war didn't end the dispute over the territory. islanders faced a key vote earlier this month to decide their political future. and they're seeing new challenges up ahead. nhk world's adrian durwood explains. >> reporter: leanne harris' family has called the fal

on the other spectrum, it just -- just as the plaintiff in the case before the supreme court today, alaintiffs' that have been in long-term relationships a friend was in relationship for 60 years, cared for his partner when he was dying of parkinson's, the yet when he passed away, he was denied any of the kind of social security safety net that he would have been entitled to have his marriage been recognized by the federal government. >> what about your own case? what have you been denied? >> as you had said, the congressional pension. i look at it more than when i first applied for the benefits, i did not go in my mind as a congressional spouse but as someone who was a surviving spouse of someone who had worked for our country for 25 years. the benefits i am seeking are the same as any other surviving spouse of a federal employe you which would include pension, health insurance, and as i get older, other kinds of social security benefits. >> dean hara, i want to turn to relate has been, congressman gerry studds in his own words. in 1987 he spoke with a gay cable network during a trip

the identity? itself identification? plaintiffsexperts found that there is some degree of same- sex behavior, desire, identity, the same -- the three categories overlap only in 24% of men and 15% of women. plaintiffs' experts also testified that it may very through the course of a lifetime. with females, it is a lifelong process in which multiple changes and sexual orientation are possible. these are not my words. this was some social scientists. and yet another, we do not really understand the origins of sexual orientation in men or women. and in 2009, the psychiatric association said that there are no studies supporting any fears of a biological ideology for the origin of homosexuality. i do not claim to understand much at all about scientific issues of sexual orientation. what is clear to me is that the scientific evidence is radically inconclusive on this. and there's simply no basis, no scientific basis for the statements made by the other side in the briefs that this is somehow immutable. or that there -- that every gay and l

judges said kanemi soko was responsible for the poisoning but they said the plaintiffs ese their claim was made more than 20 years after the incident. >> translator: i'm disappointed and angry at the ruling. >> translator: the ruling virtually tells the people that they should have filed suit before they were recognized as victims of kanemi oil poisoning. the verdict demands something that's impossible. >> reporter: the plaintiffs say they'll appeal. this is years after they were poisoned. they'll have to wait longer to find out whether they'll get any compensation. >>> there is a subculture in japan that has become mainstream. businessmen can regularly be seen reading munga comic books on the train. the two art forms have also spread overseas where they've developed a strong fan base. in recent years though business hasn't been going as well as in the past. the people attending the 12th annual animae fair in tokyo hope to change that. nhk world has more. >>> some color full characters have gathered. exhibitors from all parts of the world are here to show they're different approaches t

the jurors are biassed towards the plaintiff. the law is biassed towards the plaintiff. dge is biassed towards the plaintiffs. who pays for this? everybody. the insurance premium goes up. the cost of doing business goes up, goes up for everybody all over the country even though plaintiffs are hitting so to speak with this 8 million dollars verdict in places like southern california and new jersey. stuart: there's every incentive for the lawyers to sue because they will get 30% plus expenses. >> yes. you are being modest when you say 30%. in some states it is more. in some states it is whatever the lawyers can negotiate for, like in new york. in new jersey there's a cap on what the lawyers can earn, the more they earn the lower the percentage goes. stuart: why isn't real tort reform -- why is that not part of obama care? because if you want to get the cost of medical services down, you get rid of the lawyers. >> one of the reasons tort reform is not part of obama care is because the tort system in america is not a national system. it's 50 state systems, 51, if you count th

the supreme court rejected the plaintiff's request on thursday. the court permitted bkw to continue operating the plant on the condition that the power company implements enough safety mess usuals to address problems raised by the plaintiffs. the court also required the operator to follow instructions by the nuclear safety regulators. >>> in the wake of the fukushima accident, the swiss government decided to phase-out its nuclear facilities. >>> japan's defense ministry think tank has warned that the country might encounter an emergency situation with china around the senkaku islands. the islands are controlled by japan but claimed by china and taiwan. >>> the national inch tult for defense studies has released a port. the report says that on the back of its expanding national power, china is taking action without fearing friction with neighboring countries. an emergency might occur if china continues to invade into japan's territory by sea and air. to stabilize relations it's crucial to promote meetings between the agencies of japan and china. the

we may also get remarks from the plaintiff in the case. we saw her walk in this morning grade a reminder, at 2 p.m., we spent to bring you oral arguments from the case today. that will be followed by your calls, e-mails and tweets. [no audio] ground sourou nds] >> as we await her marks from the attorneys, a discussion from the washington journal on the two cases before the supreme court this week. >> the issue and then was if one state like for like it's same- sex marriage, than all the states will have to do it because of the full faith and credit clause constitution. congress wanted to head that off. we are not going to make it a national matter. it turns out that is not been a problem at all. states also said most must recognize same-sex marriage and the federal government won't either. no state had same-sex marriage. massachusetts and nine others do. legallydred 30,000 married couples are in the united states. under the current law, a couple can be married in massachusetts, they sit down to file their federal income taxes month, they c

int is what the plaintiffs the doma case andy perry case have done. and the doma case is even weirder. these are people who were married in their states. >> the state of new york would have recognized the marriage. >> there are people who dispute it. but now the governor of the state of new york. >> it was not settled in 2009 when the woman died. many any rate, there were people married under their state. >> why should those people have to come to congress in order to be treated with minimal debates ebright their own government when their state have married them? >> i think that brings the question of of minimal dignity. this gets to the whole question of exactly what doma does, which perhaps we can turn to. >> i want to do two things first. but first i want to ask paul, if the plaintiffs in doma are asking for some kind of rational basis or some kind of higher review, is there any basis for doing it if your state is medium rare or medium? >> i remember talking about the debora levels of scrutiny and it suggested that there was this -- for its interme

>> lawyers representing the plaintiffs -- two unmarried same-sex couples -- stated their case. while on the other side. lawyers the prop 8 marriage ban spoke. >> "they are labeling their most cherished relationships as second rate, different, unequal, and not okay."/ "we believe that prop 8 is constitutional and we believe the place for the decition to be made about redefining marriage is with the people." >> even the justices questioned whether the court should be hearing the case at all. and whether the backers of prop 8 have the legal standing to appeal the ruling in the first place. >> a decision from the court is expected in june. new tonight at 8.we spoke with john lewis and stuart gaffney, a couple from san francisco that married back in 2008 while it was briefly legal in california. they traveled to washington, d-c for the hearings. they have been outspoken advocates of marriage equality for years. and while they hope the supreme court will legalize same-sex marriage across the country, they say even a narrow ruling that allows marriages to take place here in california

you can see all the plaintiffs there. n, david boies there on the right-hand side of your screen, and they're about to make comments concerning what took place today inside the court. the schedule for tomorrow, the supreme court is going to be taking up the case against doma, the defense of marriage act. let's go ahead and listen in to the reaction of what took place. again, these oral arguments leading up over 90 minutes, a ruling by the supreme court not expected until late june. >> those of you in court today showed why i like it better when this guy is on my side as opposed to against. we had a very thoughtful hearing. we appreciate the court's attention to this issue. we appreciate the preparation of all the justices. there were a number of thoughtful and tough questions on both sides. it's now in the hands of the supreme court. it's been a long journey here for the last 3 1/2 years, and i think we're all greatly encouraged that we are within a few months of a final decision on this terribly important case. i think th

he did that with the plaintiffs seeking in the court room. -- seated in the courtroom. sat in the court room. ted olson described that marriage is a fundamental right. >> you have been an attorney for many years. have you ever seen in issue in which public opinion has shifted so much and so fast? over the last decade, there has been a 16. shift. >> have you seen this before? >> we have never seen anything like it. we have been physically the bonking the arguments that have been made. once we have a trial, cross- examining. they came over to our site and agreed with us that marriage equality would be better for america. today, they mentioned a health care decisions. there was more outcry about health care. there was concern in the public. here, we have public opinion supporting marriage equality. >> in a sense, isn't that relevant? this is not about public opinion. should the supreme court making their judgments based on what opinion polls tell us? >> at the end of the day, it is a wonderful environment to be walking into court with the majority of americans favoring mar

i'm here on behalf of the plaintiffs. it is important to focus on the fundamental fact that california has engraved discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation into its fundamental governing charter. the label given to proposition 8 in the official voters' pamphlet said it all. it eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. this proposition marginalized and stripped over one million gay and lesbian californians of access to what the supreme court of the united states has repeatedly characterized as the most important relation in life. >> mr. olson, then you do think there's a difference between taking the right away and not affording it in the first place? >> yes, we do, judge reinhardt. states what the united supreme court said in a case going back to reitman v. mulkey in 1964 where the california citizens acted through this process and took away rights with respect to discrimination in housing, and that is what the supreme court said in romer v. colorado, that it does make a difference. now, i don't

whereas section two shifts that burden of proof to the plaintiff. u feel that you have been discriminated against, you have a higher bar to reach. and the success rate for those laws is much lower. >> thank you, corey for helping to walk us through this. >> my pleasure. >>> up next, actual good news that came out of washington this week. i am not even kidding. ut. this is awesome! whoooo! you're crazy. go faster! go faster! go faster! go faster! no! stop...stop... (mom) i raised my son to be careful... hi, sweetie. hi, mom. (mom) but just to be safe... i got a subaru. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. will restore even skin tone? think again. introducing olay professional even skin tone. developed by experts in skin genomics to target 5 major causes of uneven skin tone and help restore even color. olay professional even skin tone. challenge that with olay facial hair removal duos for fine or coarse hair. first a pre-treatment balm then the effective cream. for gentle hair removal at far less than salon prices. there's no place like

and the california supreme court has told us that the plaintiffs in this case are precisely those people do you get around that? >> the only -- that's exactly what the california supreme court thought. the california supreme court thought that it could decide that the proponents, whoever they were, and this could be 25 years after the election, it could be one of the proponents, it could be four of the proponents, they could have an interest other than the state because they have no fiduciary responsibility to the state, they may be incurring attorney'' fees on behalf of the state or on behalf of themselves, but they haven't been appointed, they have no official responsibility to the state. and my only argument, and i know it's a close one, because california thinks that this is the system. the california supreme court thought that this was a system that would be a default system. i'm suggesting from your decisions with respect to article iii that that takes more than that under -- >> mr. olson, i think that you're not answering the fundamental fear. and so -- and the amici brief that se

rights is leading to. [ laughter ] but the marriage destroyers keep trotting homosexuals like the plaintiff in the doma case adorable 83-year-old lesbian widow who made the case why her relationship should be called marriage. >> it's a magic word for anybody who doesn't understand why we want it and why we need it. okay, it's magic. >> stephen: they are tugging at your heartstrings or as lesbians call it scissoring. sick stuff. la laugh on the pro-gay side you got your kagan, breyer, wise latina and ginsburg who acted all surprise that the defense of marriage act makes the federal government treat gay couples differently from straight couples. >> you are saying there's two kinds of marriages the full marriage and skim milk marriage. >> stephen: yes, skim milk marriage. i have always suspected that skim milk was gay. for god sake it has homogenized on it. for pete's sake sean penn won an oscar for it. don't call me a bigot because i'm lactose intolerant. 2% that is straight missionary. half and half, come on. [ laughter ] and yogurt, i think we all know what that fruit is doing on the bottom

after the hearing, edie windsor, the plaintiff in the case, explained why she believes americans are more accepting now of same-sex marriage. >> people saw that we didn't have horns. people learned that, we were their kids and their cousins, and their friends, all of whom were coming out for the first time, and i think it just grew to where we were human beings like everybody else. i really think that's what made the change, okay? you guys, i'm talking to you freely, you know. i would have been hiding in a closet ten years ago. >> martha coakley is massachusetts's attorney general. she was inside the court this morning. she joins us now, and i'd like to ask you, attorney general coakley, what was the vibe in the room in terms 6 the idea of states' rights. yew state was one of the first to allow same-sex marriage. did you sort of pick that up from some of the more conservative justices? >> yes. we were the first state to allow it. we were the first attorney general's office to challenge doma, and i think you heard in the questions today, and the arguments, of course, this is about the

ted olson and david boies there with the four plaintiffs, this is their day. ke from jeff toobin and joe johns that the justices were all over the place. so we'll have to wrat and sewai and equal rights for gay enabled us list the partisan veil and shine the spotlight on the human faces. human faces of suffering. >> conversations at microphones continue i have to squeeze if a break. continuing to cover this live. if you want to listen to those at the podium outside the supreme court you can do so. when we come back a critical decision overseas for our own. amanda knox. is she not guilty and that's not subject to being tried again or might she once again have to go overseas and be tried for murder? okay. so i'm the bad guy for being clean. you said it. ladies, let's not fight dirty. cascade kitchen counselor. see, over time, finish gel can leave hard-water film on your dishes and dishwasher. new cascade platinum's triple-action formula not only cleans your dishes, it helps keep your dishwasher sparkling. so we're good? don't do that. okay. [ female announcer ] c

>> reporter: he knows gay individuals but doesn't personally know any gay couples such as the plaintiffs before the supreme court who have four children. >> there should be a permanent legal solution to this problem. >> reporter: they say the case is not just about their rights a as couple but as their family. >> it's important for children to grow up feeling they have the same protections and are equal. they don't have to worry about being second class citizens. >> it's not a denial that two parents of a same sex cannot love a child in their home. but there's one thing they can't give the children and that is a mother or a father. >> reporter: and polls show that attitudes have changed radically with the majority of americans favoring same-sex marriage. no matter what happens on tuesday, the archbishop is calling for a civil debate. monte frances, nbc bay area news. >>> coming up at 6:00, the u.s. senate passes its version of budget cuts. we'll let you know some of the programs getting trimmed. and why many bay area landmarks will be turning the lights out tonight. >>> the sharks trying

the supreme court rejected the plaintiff's request on thursday. the court permitted bkw onhe condition of the power company implements it. they required them to follow instructions by the nuclear safety regulators. in the wake of 2011 fukushima accident they decided to phase out the five reactors by 2034. public discussions are under way in >>> the plan sight of the plant was only ten kilometers north of fukushima. he explained his decision to the governor. >> translator: after considering the situation and the feelings of the people of fukushima. we have concluded it will not be appropriate to proceed with the plan for construction. >> the company president noted many evacuees are still forced to live in temporary housing. he urged the e llectric companyo make good use for the site. they had been trying to win approval for the plan since 1968 but opposition from local communities surged following the disaster. >>> google has released panoramic image of an exclusion zone. town officials want to let the world see that recovery work following the 201

the identity? itself identification? plaintiffsts found that there is some degree of same-sex behavior, desire, identity, the same -- the three categories overlap only in 24% of men and 15% of women. plaintiffs' experts also testified that it may very through the course of a lifetime. with females, it is a lifelong process in which multiple changes and sexual orientation are possible. not my words. this was some social scientists. and yet another, we do not really understand the origins of sexual orientation in men or women. psychiatric the association said that there are no studies supporting any fears of a biological ideology for the origin of homosexuality. i do not claim to understand much at all about scientific issues of sexual orientation. what is clear to me is that the scientific evidence is radically inconclusive on this. basis, nos simply no scientific basis for the statements made by the other side in the briefs that this is .omehow immutable that there -- that every gay and lesbian is determined that we at the moment o

says he knows gay individuals, but admits he doesn't personally know any gay couples such as the plaintiffs in the case before the supreme court, kristen perry and sandy steer of berkeley who have four children. >> there should be a permanent legal solution to this problem of our constitutional rights. >> reporter: they say the case is not just about their rights as a couple, but the rights of their entire family. >> it's very important for children to grow up feeling like they have the same protections as everybody else. they are equal. they don't have to worry about being second-class citizens when they grow up. >> it's not a denial that two people, two parents of the same sex can't love the children in their home. but there's one thing they can't give the children. that is a mother or a father. >> monte francis, "today in the bay." >> polls shou thw that attitude have changed dramatically with the majority of americans favoring same-sex marriage. no matter what happens on tuesday with the supreme court the archbishop is calling for a civil debate. >>> still ahead on "today in the bay" it

. >> and moments after the hearing ended, the attorneys from both sides, plaintiffs and their families, walked out of the court to the steps to address the cameras. >> we are confident where the american people are going. we don't know what the united states supreme court will do but we're very gratified that they listened, they heard, they asked hard questions and there's no denying where the right is. and we hope that the supreme court will come out in that way when they make this decision in june. >> we look forward to a day when proposition 8 is finally and officially eliminated and equality is restored to the state of california. >> 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. >> i think the most remarkable thing that happened in there was that there was no attempt to defend the ban on gay and lesbian marriage. there was no indication of any harm. all that was said in there was that this important constitutional right ought to be deci

the archbishop says he knows gay individuals but doesn't personally know gay couples, such as the plaintiffs in the case before the supreme court, christian perry and sandy steer of berkeley who have four children. >> there should be permanent solution to this problem of our constitutional rights. >> reporter: they say the case is not just about their rights as a couple but the rights of their family. >> it's important for children to grow up feeling like they have the same protections as everyone else. they're equal. they don't have to worry about being second class citizens. >> it's not a denial that two parents of the same sex can't love the children in their home. but there's one thing they can't give the children, that's a mother or a father. >> reporter: polls show that attitudes have changed dramatically in recent times with the majority of americans now favoring same-sex marriage. the archbishop says he doesn't want to be defined by what he's against. he labels himself as someone who wants to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. he says no matter what happens on tuesday w

two of the plaintiffs in the case to overturn prop 8 are berkeley residents. >> i think the more people talk about it, and the more they know somebody who is openly gay or lesbian, the more that it sort of stops being an idea. >> reporter: across the bay, san francisco has long been considered the epicenter of gay marriage. we want equality in prop 8 signs are posted in the castro to publicize tonight's march from market and castro to city hall. >> what we wanted to do is support the president and say to the supreme court and america is listening and america is asking for equal rights. >> reporter: brian willingham and his husband were legally married in new york and now live in california. they are having immigration issues because their marriage is not recognized by the federal government or california. the supreme court ruling on both proposition 8 and federal defense of marriage act means everything to them. >> all we're asking for is the same rights. >> reporter: the defense of marriage organization continues to say that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. many of th

again to jewish opponent and frankfurter was very important and initiating discussions regarding the plaintiff persecuted jews and what americans can do about it. also important was the secretary of labor, frances perkins who roosevelt knew new york is an activist and she was a major advocate for refugees. >> host: secretary perkins, frankfurter, with a jewish? >> guest: he was jewish but frances perkins was not. oddly she was attacked by anti-semites for being jewish based on anyone who supported jewish issues was jewish. franklin roosevelt himself was accused of being jewish. people talked about president rosenfeld or rosenberg and he had a wonderful response. i'm not jewish, but the jewish people are wonderful and i wouldn't mind if i was. >> host: was the consensus among fdr regarding the jews? >> guest: at the time there was an absolute consensus. the jews were the strongest supporters are president of the united states. jews were very important donors to the democratic party and jews revered franklin delano roosevelt understood he did everything possible and we can talk about that to hel

. >> 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 majority of americans believe they should be allowed to wed. outside the court an almost carnival-like atmosphere the debate continues. tomorrow, in a separate case the justices consider the defense of marriage act, the 1996 law that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their states. >> inside the court for today's argument, white house senior advisor and chief justice john roberts' first cousin, a lesbian, who wants do marry her partner of four years. live in washington at the supreme court for abc7 news. back to you. >> thank you. cameras are not allowed in the court but the supreme court has released audio of the hearing. the lawyer defending prop 8 faced tough questions from the justices. >> what harm you see happen

an attorney from new york city is representing the plaintiff in the case, a woman named kaity windsor. she was with partner, they met in the -- in greenwich village in the 1960's, they got married in toronto in 2007, they lived in new york, and her spouse died in 2009. she got a $363,000 estate tax bill from the irs. ofot of this was the value the property they own, it went up. basically the ira's and treated her as if they were not married. -- irs treated her as if they were not married. her case is what they will hear today. host: vicky jackson. guest: this case comes up in an audit posture. i alluded to it. usually somebody sues and the government says no, i will defend the law. this is a case in which the government is on the side of plaintiff and house republicans are defending the law. the court wants to hear an argument on whether it has jurisdiction to decide this because it is not, it does not look like a real case. vicki jackson, an outside attorney, was appointed to argue that. commentes that paul does not have standing, he does not represent the government anymore, and it

a berkeley couple are aplunge the plaintiffs in the historic case. they say prop 8 is constitutional. >> this sends a message to kids and families that equality is important. and that is huge. because that lives long after we're gone. >> same sex couples say they should receive the same benefits afforded to hetero couples. prop 8 supporters say hetero sexual marriage is an institution of society. stay with us. david stevenson will be at the supreme court for tuesday's oral arguments. and we'll have a special at 6:30 on tuesday night. we'll break down the arguments and gauge reaction from washington, d.c. to the bay area. >>> tickets going fast for tomorrow's ncaa tournament game at hp pavilion. cal will take on syracuse university after the golden bears upset unlv. san jose has hosted the tournament three times in seven years. each time bringing in an estimated $20 million to the local economy. we were hoping that cal would advance but unfortunately lost to memphis. >> yeah last 30 seconds of that st. mary's game was heartbreaking but exciting at the

a berkeley couple are aplunge the plaintiffs in the historic case. they say prop 8 is constitutional. >> this sends a message to kids and families that equality is important. and that is huge. because that lives long after we're gone. >> same sex couples say they should receive the same benefits afforded to hetero couples. prop 8 supporters say hetero sexual marriage is an institution of society. stay with us. david stevenson will be at the supreme court for tuesday's oral arguments. and we'll have a special at 6:30 on tuesday night. we'll break down the arguments and gauge reaction from washington, d.c. to the bay area. >>> tickets going fast for tomorrow's ncaa tournament game at hp pavilion. cal will take on syracuse university after the golden bears upset unlv. san jose has hosted the tournament three times in seven years. each time bringing in an estimated $20 million to the local economy. we were hoping that cal would advance but unfortunately lost to memphis. >> yeah last 30 seconds of that st. mary's game was heartbreaking but exciting at the

the first one is this -- the plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that redefining marriage will have real-world consequences, and that it is impossible for anyone to foresee the future accurately enough to know exactly what those real-world consequences would be. and among those real-world consequences, your honor, we would suggest are adverse consequences. but consider the california voter, in 2008, in the ballot booth, with the question before her whether or not this age-old bedrock social institution should be fundamentally redefined, and knowing that there's no way that she or anyone else could possibly know what the long-term implications of profound redefinition of a bedrock social institution would be. that is reason enough, your honor, that would hardly be irrational for that voter to say, i believe that this experiment, which is now only fairly four years old, even in massachusetts, the oldest state that is conducting it, to say, i think it better for california to hit the pause button and await additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing. >> m

most of the plaintiffs are from fukushima. many had to evacuate their homes because of radio active contamination. self-lawsuits were filed on the same day at the district courts in fukushima, tokyo. they're demanding the region be are stored to the condition before the accident. >> translator: financial compensation is at a stand still because we all suffered from the i did as it sere in different ways. it's also because of the reliability of tepco and the japanese government has been established. >> total compensation is about $55 million. >> a number of farmers are eager get back to the fields. government officials say about 20% of them still can't plant and harvest in their hometowns. >> it was part of the area. people can now visit the homes and fields during the day, but they don't know when they can return for good. we have the story. >> reporter: this man and his ancestors have grown rice in the district for about 400 years. 1200 other families farm here too. but the tsunami flooded the patties, and concerns about radio

and the california supreme court has told us that the plaintiffs in this case are precisely those people. so how do you get around that? >> the only -- that's exactly what the california supreme court thought. the california supreme court thought that it could decide that the proponents, whoever they were, and this could be 25 years after the election, it could be one of the proponents, it could be four of the proponents, they could have an interest other than the state because they have no fiduciary responsibility to the state, they may be incurring attorneys' fees on behalf of the state or on behalf of themselves, but they haven't been appointed, they have no official responsibility to the state. and my only argument, and i know it's a close one, because california thinks that this is the system. the california supreme court thought that this was a system that would be a default system. i'm suggesting from your decisions with respect to article iii that that takes more than that under -- >> mr. olson, i think that you're not answering the fundamental fear. and so -- and the amici brief

>> i would point out in the experts of the plaintiffs in this case in the trial that was held, they all had to admit that first of all, redefining marriage would work a substantial change on the institution. second of all, no one is capable of predicting with any certainty how redefining marriage would affect society in general. >> scott: you think the stakes on tuesday are what? >> i think the stakes are high. you are talking about not just the institution of marriage, but also kind of a larger question of are we going to have a judiciary that creates new law because of essentially substituting their judgment for the judgment of the people who through the democratic process should be making these important policy decisions. >> scott: if prop 8 is struck down as the lower courts have done, do you feel that is the end of the road for your group in california or is there another avenue to pursue? >> if the supreme court decides there is a hidden invisible right to same-sex marriage in the constitution, that would spell an end to the same-sex marriage in california. >> scott: andy, thanks

i am chris perry, the plaintiff and the case you just heard of the supreme court. in this country, as children, we learned there is a founding principle -- all men and women are created equal. we want is equality because this is a founding principle. unfortunately, with the passage of proposition 8, we have learned there are a group of people in california who are not being treated equally. that was recognized by a federal court and the ninth circuit. we look forward to a day when proposition 8 is finally and officially eliminated and equality is restored to the state of california. am sande spear, and like all americans, i believe in equality. i also believe in our judicial system and i have great faith in it. but more than anything, i believe in love. proposition 8 is a discriminatory law that hurts people. hertz gays and lesbians in california. it hurts the children we are raising and it does so for no good reason. it is our hope we can move forward and remove this harm from societies of gays and lesbians in california can go back to their lives, living equally

i'm the plaintiff and i didn't want to sue the city. but dr. maria row aver owe and i stumbled upon wrongdoing ~ in involving laguna honda's ceo that we just couldn't ignore. after notifying the whistle blower program, i received a unique permanent layoff and dr. rovero was harassed. we reported the retaliation to the ethics commission, but ethics did nothing to protect my career. instead, they told me to get a lawyer. then ethics took over two years to complete their investigation. in retrospect, the lawsuit was our only hope because ethics has not sustained a single whistle blower retaliation claim since it was founded. not one. many studies have shown that reprizals against whistleblowers are common with rates up to 90%. but with our ethics commission, the retaliation rate is always zero. that's why we are here today. we hope some benefit will come of this and offer two suggestions to prevent future lawsuits. number one, ask why the ethics commission dismisses every retaliation complaint it receives. and two, ask the controller's whistleblow