♪ i'm going to let it shine >> reporter: inside the court today, justices heard the legal arguments about whether same-sex marriage is a right protected under the constitution. while outside supporters and opponents filled the streets. many holding their own debates and demonstrating the fierce passion the issue inspired. >> that's what that was about. it had nothing to do with law. >> you should not lie with mankind and with woman kind. it's an abomination. >> it has nothing to do with love. >> reporter: the constitutionality of california's proposition 8, a 2008 ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage. the california supreme court upheld prop-8 in 2009 but a federal court struck it down a year later setting the stage for today's u.s. supreme court showdown. the 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 is practical and really does form the foundation of where we come from. >> reporter: after the arguments, the principals in the casey merged to have their say. chris perry and her partner are one of two california couples who challenged proposition 8. >> in this country as children we learn that there is a founding principle that all men and women are created equal. and we want this equality because this is a founding principle. unfortunately with the passage of proposition 8, we learn that there are a group of people in california who are not being treated equally. >> reporter: on the other side, protect marriage, the group behind proposition 8. its legal counsnd arew punya said the decision should be left to voters. >> our position all along has been the political process, that means state by state, states deciding for themselves. that's the forum where this debate belongs. this is not something that should be imposed by the judiciary, by the court. >> prop-8 has going to go. reporter: still the issue now is before the nation's highest court and will be again tomorrow when the justices hear a separate case on the federal defense of marriage act. that 1996 law limits marriage to one man and one woman. >> woodruff: marcia coyle of the "national law journal" was inside the supreme court this morning, and is back with us tonight. welcome back to the newshour. so, marcia, this is a case that has the potential to make the history books. did that come across in the court? >> oh, i think absolutely. before the arguments, the courtroom was packed with public spectators, members of the bar. more than 100 reporters were seated for the arguments. reporter from a number of different countries as well. there was a strong undercurrent of excitement. no matter what the court says, no matter how little the court says, this is the first substantive review of same-sex marriage, which some people have said is the most important civil rights issue of the day. so, yes, i think these arguments are historic and will make the history books. >> woodruff: i was struck about the justices' questions right at the outset. whether they should have even taken this case at all and in particular justice kennedy got to it early on. the chief justice did. >> right. the very first question was from the chief justice. it had to do with whether the defenders of proposition 8 have what we call standing to defend it. do they have a right, do they meet the requirements for defending proposition 8, the federal requirements? that's a really key question because if they don't have standing to defend it, then the case may well be dismissed on standing grounds. >> woodruff: marcia, looking ahead if that were to happen, what happens to proposition 8? >> well, if there is no standing, then the court is likely to vacate the lower court ruling that struck down proposition 8. that leaves in place a federal district court judge's injunction against proposition 8 and then there will be a battle over whether that injunction still stands, what the scope of the injunction is. >> woodruff: we've got time to worry about that later when we know what the court rules. so the attorney defending proposition 8, his name is charles cooper. he argued that the institution of same-sex marriage is so new that the court would be wise to use caution at which point justice kennedy raised another factor. we've got audio from the arguments so let's listen to one section there. >> i think that there's substantial... there's substance to the point that sociological information is knew. we have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. on the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal... what could be a legal injury. that's the voice of these children. there are some 40,000 children in california according to the brief that live with same-sex parents. and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. the voice of those children is important in this case. don't you think? >> your honor, i certainly would not dispute the importance of that consideration. that consideration especially in the political process where this issue is being debated and will continue to be debated certainly in california being debated elsewhere. but on that specific question, your honor, there simply is no data. >> woodruff: what do you take away from that exchange. >> justice kennedy was responding to an exchange with mr. cooper that actually began with justice kagan. she asked him what harm is there to the institution of marriage or to opposite-sex couples if marriage were extended to include same-sex partners? >> and mr. cooper gave kind of a general answer that we don't know yet. we can't predict the future. we don't know what harms might result. but it was justice scalia who interjected and said, well, i can give you a concrete one. if same-sex marriage is permitted, then states will have to recognize adoptions by same-sex couples. and there is a dispute in sociological data in studies about whether children raised by same-sex parents are harmed or not harmed. so that is what justice kennedy was responding to. but that's been one of the key arguments against proposition 8, and i think that may have been one of mr. cooper's weaker points in response to justice kennedy. however, mr. cooper did consistently argue that these are policy questions that ought to be decided by the states not the supreme court. >> woodruff: marcia, there's another noteworthy exchange a little bit later when justice kagan tried to pin down mr. cooper, the attorney defending prop-8, about the definition of marriage. we're going to listen to that now. >> that said, mr. cooper, suppose a state said because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on proceed creation we're not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. would that be constitutional? >> no, your honor, it would not be constitutional. >> because that's the same state interest i would think, you know. if you're over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in regulating proceed creation through marriage. so why is that different? >> your honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is is very rare that both parties to the couple are infertile and the traditional... >> really, because if a couple... (laughing). i can just assure you if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage. (laughing). >> your honor, society's interest in responsible procreation isn't just with respect to the pro creative capacities of the couple itself. >> woodruff: where did that discourse leave everyone? >> justice kagan was trying to probe the logic of mr. cooper's argument that pro creation is the central purpose of marriage. and justice breyer later also picked up on that saying, you know, there are a lot of people who get married who don't intend to have children. >> woodruff: marcia, one other exchange we want to listen to. this is between ted olson who is the attorney challenging prop-8 and the chief justice. again this has to do with the definition of marriage. >> if the fundamental thing is that denying gays and lesbians the right of marriage, which is fundamental under your decisions, that is unconstitutional, if it is... if the state comes forthwith certain arguments -- utah might come forthwith certain justifications, california might come forthwith others -- but the fact is california can't make the arguments about adoption or child rearing or people living together because they've already made policy decisions. so that doesn't make them... >> so it's just about the label in this case. >> the label is... same-sex couples have every other right. it's just about the label. >> the label "marriage" means something. >> sure. if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, i suppose you can force the child to say, "this is my friend." but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. that's it seems to me what supporters of proposition 8 are saying here. all you're interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label. >> woodruff: the chief juice advertise probing him on that. >> yes. mr. olson really has two purposes here. one, he is pushing the broader argument that the u.s. constitution, equal protection clause, does guarantee same-sex couples the right to marriage. but he also wants his clients who are two california couples, to win. so he was saying that the arguments mr. cooper is making about proposition 8 don't hold water in california. you can't argue about adoption or morality because california has already approved civil union so it's made those policy decisions. but he has stressed throughout his argument that marriage means something. he said, for example, the court in loving versus virginia back in 1967, could have said to interracial couples, you can't have marriage but you can have interracial unions. that, he said, everybody would know is wrong. marriage is status. it's recognition. it's support. >> woodruff: that was of course the case that said that interracial marriage was legal. marcia, finally, what should we take away from today and what bearing from what we heard today have on tomorrow's case that they're going to hear, the defense of marriage act which is that marriage, the federal law that requires that marriage be between a man and a woman some. >> you know, judy, i don't ever predict on the basis of oral arguments. it's way too risky. sort of my gut reaction here to the court's argument and questions were that they're not ready to go as far as mr. olson would like, and that is to say that the u.s. constitution does guarantee the fundamental right to marriage to same-sex couples. they seem to be looking for either a narrower approach, as the lower federal appellate court did, or actually to dispose of the case in some way without saying anything major about same-sex marriage. the case tomorrow is very different. it has to do with the federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for all federal purposes. that's more than 1,000 laws. and marriage, the definition of marriage, the requirements of marriage, have always been a state prerogative. we're going to see whether congress overstepped its boundaries here by legislating the federal defense of marriage act. >> woodruff: we'll have you back tomorrow to talk about what is said in court. >> i will be here. woodruff: marcia coyle, thank you. >> my pleasure, judy. ifill: you can find out much more about today's >> ifill: you can find much more about today's case on our web site, including audio of the full arguments and reaction from the lawyers and the plaintiffs, plus we'll have our own debate about proposition 8 coming up. also ahead on the newshour, housing sales on the rise; deadly work in grain elevators; musicians on the picket lines in san francisco; plus, the women who helped win world war ii. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: police will have to get a warrant from now on before they bring drug-sniffing dogs on a suspect's property. the supreme court handed down that decision today, 5-4. justice antonin scalia wrote the majority opinion for a conservative-liberal combination. he found that using sniffer dogs without a warrant violates the fourth amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure. the republican governor of north dakota signed legislation today banning most abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected. that means abortions would be illegal as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. governor jack dalrymple acknowledged it's a direct challenge to "roe v. wade," the u.s. supreme court ruling that legalized abortion. dalyrmple also signed the nation's first law banning abortions based on down syndrome and other genetic defects. the supreme court of indiana has upheld the broadest school voucher program in the nation. a unanimous decision today rejected arguments that the law mainly benefits religious institutions that run private schools. unlike most states, indiana's program extends not only to the poor, but to middle-class families as well. in cyprus, several thousand students protested in nicosia, a day after the country secured a $13 billion international bailout. the deal calls for cyprus to shrink its banking sector and impose heavy losses on large depositors. today protesters marched on parliament and the presidential palace. they waved signs and chanted slogans against the austerity measures, and the financial toll they're expected to take. >> they've just eliminated all our dreams, everything we worked for, everything we achieved up until now what our parents have achieved. basically they're just knocking down this country just because they want to. >> sreenivasan: the cyprus government has ordered its banks to remain closed for another two days so people won't be able to withdraw all of their money. wall street turned in a big day, thanks to upbeat reports on housing and manufacturing. the dow jones industrial average gained nearly 112 points to close at 14,559. the nasdaq rose 17 points to close at 3252. a new jersey man today claimed one of the largest powerball jackpots ever, $338 million. pedro quezada is a dominican immigrant who came to this country 26 years ago, and owns a small grocery store. he said through a translator that he felt "pure joy" at winning, and is still figuring out what to do with his new fortune. >> i don't know how exactly, but i will help those in need. of course my family is a very humble family. we are going to help each other out. >> sreenivasan: new jersey lottery officials said later that quezada has opted to take his winnings in a single, lump- sum payout. after taxes, that comes to $152 million. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to gwen. >> ifill: we return to today's same sex marriage debate with one of our own, featuring two attorneys who were at the court today. california attorney general kamala harris, who supports overturning the gay marriage ban. and austin nimocks, counsel for the alliance defending freedom, which supports proposition 8. thank you both for joining us. i want to start by asking you both this question. why is the right to marry or same-sex marriage considered to be a constitutional issue and not a social one? attorney general harris. >> first of all the united states supreme court since 1880 has described marriage as a fundamental right. what we know is that it is based on some very fundamental notions around which we crafted our constitution and our country. the fundamental notion of justice, of privacy, and of equality. and the discussion then before the court was rightly before the court to discuss the issue of same-sex marriage in the context of those 14 cases over a century of discussion about what is fundamental, what is most sacred of the rights that we have and therefore should not be taken away and therefore should not be deprived to any citizen. >> ifill: mr. nimocks. well, i think when you look at the history of the supreme court and the precedent about marriage, it's been very clear that the supreme court is always talking about marriage as the union of one man and one woman. and all of that precedent led up to a case in the '70s where the supreme court rejected a claim for same-sex marriage. so all of the history of the supreme court precedent is really about marriage between one man and one woman. the case before the court today was whether or not same sex marriage must be imposed upon the entire country. we've been arguing consistently with the supreme court and to other courts across this country that that should not be the case. we need to leave this debate that we're having as a country over same-sex marriage in the hands of the people. >> ifill: let's talk about some of the commentary that came up today. the conversation among the justices. justice kennedy was talking about that this was too new. maybe this was a cliff we were walking off. that same sex marriage is a virtually new idea. it's younger than the internet, he said. and therefore maybe the supreme court shouldn't be jumping into this and maybe it might not even have a standing to do so. what was your reaction to that? >> i think that when we are discussing this issue, we should discuss it is in the context perhaps of what is new to the court versus what is new to the fundamental principles in our constitution. it is not a new concept to us as a country and it is not a new concept to our constitution that we have described marriage as a fundamental right. so the issue before the court in this case, which is whether ms. perry can marry her partner of 16 years with whom she shares a child. and whether she and other same-sex couples will be treated equally under the law as opposite-sex couples really relates to fundamental notions about equality. and liberty. >> ifill: are we talking about unchartered waters as the justices saying? >> they are exactly unchartered waters as justice kennedy remarked today. it really goes to the newness of the debate we're having in this country over marriage, its meaning, its importance to our society and children. same-sex marriage is a very new concept. newer, as justice alito said, than internet or cell phones. and so it really highlights the role of the court. the supreme court is not a legislature. it's not designed to be a legislature. justices have expressed reservations about the capacity of the court to answer this difficult question over this very important debate. that's why we have ballot boxes. that's why we have legislatures: to deal with these important issues so we can have the debate, see how things go over the course of time. that's all we're asking the supreme court to do. we don't need a 50-state mandate on same-sex marriage in this country. we need to leave it in the hands of the people. >> ifill: do you reject the point that justice ginsberg made today compare inning to the loving v. virginia case which allowed interracial marriage in virginia. do you not see any parallels in that? >> not at all. when the supreme court decided the loving case, it made very clear that marriage is color-blind but it's not gender blind because it said in that case that marriage is very fundamental to our very existence and survival, talking about the pro creative aspects of marriage being between one man and one woman. and justice kennedy even seemed to reject that notion during the course of the argument today. so we've been very con sichtent on that argumentment the gender concept of marriage between a man and a woman is the very core of marriage. to radically redefine it through a 50-state mandate which is what our opponents are asking in this case we don't think is in the best interest of america nor does it respect our democratic institutions. we have those institutions for a reason so the people the use them. the people in california have used them twice voting for marriage twice in a nine-year period. i think we need to respect those votes and the votes across the country. >> ifill: as the chief legal officer in the state of california, what about that argument about pro creation? >> well i think it's actually very weak argument. to suggest that the only... that the difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples is accidental pro creation. that's literally what they argue. to argue that that distinction and that should be the basis for treating people differently under the constitution and in particular treating people differently as it relates to a fundamental right i think it makes extremely weak argument. on the point of california, 61% of californians today believe in same sex marriage. the majority of americans believe in same sex marriage. the majority of catholics believe in same sex marriage and are not opposed to it. and so when we look at the issue in terms of where america is, i think america is consistent with fundamental notions of justice as articulated in the constitution. i think we also need to look at the fact that in california today, we have 50,000 children who are the children of these same-sex couples, who are looking at their parents and looking at us as a society and saying, why can't my parents be married too? >> ifill: let me ask you about because justice kennedy mentioned that as well. what happens to the children? what would your answer to that be? >> well, i don't think i can really improve upon mr. cooper's answer today during oral argument that our opponents' own experts even acknowledge that there's no proof in the record that adding same-sex couples to the institution of marriage dramatically increases their lives or the lives of their children. so it just really goes back to the point then is whether or not californians and americans across this country are allowed to protect and preserve something that's always been constitutional and that's the institution of marriage. believe in the idea that mothers and fathers are not merely accessories to the family but important components to the family and uphold that ideal in our public policy. americans across this country, tens of millions, have voted in favor of marriage. i think those votes and the opinions of americans in that regard are very important. general harris makes a good point. we're having a debate. there are polls out there. we need to keep the debate alive. i agree with her. we need to keep the debates where debates belong, and that's in our legislative processes and our democratic institutions. >> ifill: if were not to be taken up by the court, they were either to reject it or to only uphold part of it or reject part of it, could the people of california repeal this ban? would it do that? >> the issue before the court included the constitutionality of same sex marriage but it also included the standing. in particular in the case before the court, the question of whether mr. hollingsworth who is a proceed pen penitentiary of proon 8 had standing to bring the case and the article 3 of the constitution, as your previous segment discussed, requires that the person who brings the issue to the court shows that they have a personal stake in the outcome. part of our position is that mr. hollingsworth' life will not be impacted in any direct way. there will be no harm to his life to allow ms. perry to marry her partner. and for that reason, if the court agrees with that, it is possible that the court could send the case back to california, declaring that mr. hollingsworth has no standing so the case should not rightly be before the court. >> ifill: briefly, mr. nimocks, this public opinion question, is this something that in the end is going to change the direction, do you think, of this argument, no matter what the court does, briefly? >> i think you bring up a good point. i think no matter what the supreme court does, americans are going to continue to debate this question. the supreme court can no more settle the question of marriage than it did settle the question of abortion in this country. i think all the more reason why we need to keep the debate where it is. californians have the right, right now, to go back to the ballot box, go back to the polls to enact any number of constitutional amendments that they want to, to their constitution, to enact any number of propositions. we don't need to squelch that democratic process with a 50-state mandate from the supreme court. that's what we're asking the supreme court not to rule with a heavy hand here. let the people work on this issue. >> ifill: austin nimocks of alliance defending freedom and kamala harris attorney general for the state of california, thank you very much: >> ifill: and we'll have full coverage of tomorrow's case, a challenge to the defense of marriage act. >> woodruff: now, a housing recovery that seems to be picking up strength, and even surprising expectations in some cities. hari sreenivasan has our report. >> sreenivasan: the latest numbers showed the biggest gains in home prices since the onset of the financial crisis. the s&p/case-shiller index found prices rose in the largest 20 markets by a little more than 8% in january, compared to a year ago. separately, a government report out today found new home sales were down by 5% last month, but still up 12% compared to 2012. while some markets are reporting prices are climbing more quickly than expected, the average price of a new home is nearly $247,000. for a closer look at what's driving the pace of this recovery, we turn to nicholas retsinas. he teaches about real estate at the harvard business school. so, first of all, this seems to be the fastest rate of recovery since before the crash. what's your take on these numbers? >> well, there are broad signs of recovery. all the numbers, as you point out, are positive for the recovery is moving, it's still a little uneven overall but clearly all the signals are positive. that doesn't mean we can't overreach. but right now it seems we're moving in a very positive direction. >> sreenivasan: why is it so uneven? it seems that in certain parts of the country sales fell in the northeast, in the south, and they seem to be picking up again in the midwest and west. >> let's look, for example, where the price increases were the sharpest today: in las vegas, in phoenix. in those cases, much of that is motivated by investors. those are places where prices fell 50, 60, 70 percent in some neighborhoods. investors feel that was overcorrecting so therefore they're trying to get in. this may be a temporary spike in those cities. hard to imagine you would see the same pace of increase in the days ahead. >> sreenivasan: is there a danger of us walking back into bubble territory as some of these folks that have been waiting on the side lines decide to jump in and almost create the panic that they're scared of? >> there's always a danger. but again credit is still pretty tight. we still have some issues that we haven't quite resolved. while foreclosures have slowed that doesn't mean there still aren't more ahead of us. interest rates at some point will start to edge up. so there are some dampeners of price increases. bubble increases are possible, but probably unlikely given the recent history. >> sreenivasan: let's talk a little bit about foreclosures. how much of an impact are they having on inventory or have they made their way through the system? >> not quite. they've had an impact on inventory for the last couple years. foreclosures have slowed dramatically. banks are worried about getting sue. they're being much more careful and much more aggressive of loan modifications. three million households are seriously delinquent or started a foreclosure process. at some point the pig is going to get out of that python. when it does it will add to the inventory and the price increases will start to moderate substantially. >> sreenivasan: what is this increase in prices mean to those people whose homes have been underwater for so long? >> well, most people's homes underwater are still very underwater. while there's been a modest uptick in the properties that have gone above water overall at this . if prices continue to go up, those people will start putting their homes on the market. they're reluctant to do so today because to do so means they would have to pay the bank the difference between value and what they owe. but if the value were to go up, you start to see the inventory go up, that's why i think that will dampen any substantial price increases going forward. >> sreenivasan: we know these numbers have a tendency to be corrected every month. so when we look at a three- or four-month moving average, we see the trend in the right direction. what happened three or four months ago? what's different now? >> part of it is something we don't measure very well. that's psychology. sometimes the dogs hear whistles that people don't hear. somehow 3, 4, 5, 6 months ago people started to hear a whistle that said it's okay to buy a home now. prices aren't going to keep falling. i think that psychology is influencing consumer behavior. it is responsible for some of the uptick in existing home sales and even in new home sales. >> sreenivasan: what about the job market? does that factor into it? >> very much so. people are much more confident when they're working, much more confident about buying a home and not being afraid of being let go. for those children who have been in our basements maybe they're now getting a job. enough is enough, mom and dad. time for me to go out in the marketplace. >> sreenivasan: is there enough evidence to see this trend line continuing? >> all the signs are positive. again, there are some clouds on the horizon. the interest rates i mentioned, the foreclosures overall but generally speaking we seem to be in the midst of recovery. i just don't think it's an overly robust recovery, but i think there are clear signs of recovery. >> sreenivasan: nicholas ret sin as from the harvard business school, thanks so much. >> thank you. >> ifill: now, a new investigation finds tragic accidents and a lack of government oversight in an important sector of the farming economy. margaret warner has the story. warner: working conditions in much of the agriculture industry rarely capture national attention. and that includes the grain storage business. but the storage of grain in huge silos is a growing business. ever more so in the age of biofuels. now a new investigation by n.p.r. and the center for public integrity, among others, is raising tough questions about its labor practices. among the findings, there have been at least 179 deaths at commercial storage facilities since 1984. and numerous others on farms themselves. in many cases, workers like 14-year-old wyatt widebread of mount carol, illinois, literally suffocated to death, buried in corn in the silo. other deaths result from explosions. 2010 was the deadliest year on record with 26 killed. commercial facilities are overseen by a federal agency, o.s.h.a., but the investigation found that the government's initial finds of the companies ultimately were reduced by nearly 60%. howard berkes of n.p.r. is one of the lead reporters on this story and he joins me now. howard, welcome back to the program. first of all, describe how these deaths occur specifically that 14-year-old boy in illinois. what happened there? >> wyatt whitebread along with two coworkers were sent into a grain bin in illinois to walk down the grain. that's a process by which they go in with picks and shovels and they're knocking down clogged corn that's crusted on the side of the bin. there may be corn that's blocking a hole in the bottom of the bin through which the corn is supposed to drain or it may just be bridging up, clogging on the surface, and it's specifically illegal... a law in 1996 made walking down grain illegal. but they were sent in to do it. i should add that wyatt whitebread at age 14 was underage. he shouldn't have been working in that bin. there were a number of other things that were done that put those boys in danger, including the failure to use safety harnesses which were actually hanging in a shed near the bin, and they weren't trained on what to do. they didn't realize that they were in danger. >> warner: i gather then that somehow he got sucked down into the grain? >> what happened is that underneath the bin is a conveyer belt that is pulling corn out of the bin through holes in the bottom of the bin. there was one hole operating when they walked into the bin. there was a cone that had formed in the center, and the grain was flowing down that cone. they knew enough to sort of stay away from that flowing corn. but the supervisor of the facility opened up a second hole. and a second cone formed. and the flowing grain caught wyatt first. he was pulled under. alex and will tried to pull him out. they also were caught. wyatt went completely under the corn. alex followed. and will was caught up to his neck. he tried to keep the corn away from alex's face but was unable to do that. >> warner: how does o.s.h.a. -- what does o.s.h.a. do with these cases and how do they explain the fact that the initial fines they levy are so often reduced dramatically? >> well, in this case the fine of $555,000 was one of the biggest ever that o.s.h.a. levied. then it cut the fine more than 60%. what we found in our investigation was that that is par for the course. o.s.h.a. cuts fined about 60% of the time in these cases when workers die. the average fine is cut by 50%. and this is a system in which o.s.h.a. operates, other government agencies basically do the same thing with fines. they negotiate with the employers. they take into account how much money the employer has, what their income is. they're just, you know, factors like that. and then they come to some resolution but the problem is that these deaths have persisted year after year after year, 2010, as you said was the worst year on record. so fines which are supposed to be a disincentive for employers turn out not to be if the employers can negotiate them down. i should add that fines shall been negotiated down as much as 92%, 97%. they almost disappear in some cases. >> warner: is it from... i mean, is there actually pressure from the companies? is there... from your investigation anyway, is there too much coziness between the regulators and the industry? >> i don't know what it is that propels o.s.h.a. to cut fines on such a regular basis. it is the right of an employer to challenge these fines. and the employer can go to an administrative law court if they don't like the way that o.s.h.a. is handling it and how much the fines have been reduced. there's a lot of pressure in this country to go easy on businesses, to not hurt businesses, and to not overregulate. o.s.h.a. is probably the one agency in the government that gets the most pressure. that may have something to do with this. >> warner: very briefly there are something like 4500 workplace deaths a year in this country. this is a relatively small amount. what motivated you to spend months and months on this? >> well, because what happens with workers dying in grain happens with workers who die in every other workplace. fines are routinely cut. it's very rare to have a prosecution in these cases. in fact, federal law is really weak. you can kill a worker through your negligence and the most you'll get is six months in jail and it's a misdemeanor, federal prosecutors don't want to take cases like that. it's much more serious if you kill an endangered species in this country. it's a felony with more serious jail time. if you poison a stream and you don't even kill anybody, you can get more jail time and it's a felony. workers don't get the protection of the law. what happens in grain bins is really indicative of what happens in all kinds of workplaces. >> warner: howard berkes of n.p.r., thank you. and on our website you can find links to all of the reporting from this series. >> woodruff: next, a strike by a leading symphony is the latest in a string of labor and financial headaches for the nation's orchestras. newshour correspondent spencer michels has the story. >> reporter: the san francisco symphony, under its conductor and musical director michael tilson thomas, canceled all its san francisco concerts for the past few weeks, and called off an east coast tour that included a performance in new york's carnegie hall. instead of performing, musicians milled about in front of davies hall in san francisco and refused to play until they got a contract that met their demands for higher pay and paid health care benefits, comparable to other top orchestras. it was just the latest trouble on the national classical music front. since 2002, classical music performances have seen a decline in attendance of 13% across the country. season ticket sales decreased as well, forcing orchestras to market single tickets-- an expensive proposition-- and to search for new audiences by finding new approaches to concerts. last year, chicago symphony musicians struck, asking for more pay and better health care. that strike was settled quickly, with modest pay increases but larger health care payments. in detroit, the symphony went out for six months in 2011; the musicians finally accepted a 25% pay cut. the celebrated philadelphia orchestra emerged from bankruptcy protection last year, and still faces financial problems. in san francisco, the symphony has seen small increases in attendance and ticket revenue. donations are also up slightly. but, the symphony says, its concert production expenses, including musicians' salaries, are up 8% a year, a trend they say is unsustainable. brent assink, executive director of the san francisco symphony, says tough economic times have impacted all symphony budgets, including his. >> the general trend that we're seeing puts enormous pressure on orchestras and other organizations and, in fact, nonprofits in general. >> you'll never hear an orchestra management say, "we're sitting on pots of cash, we're doing fine." >> reporter: joshua kosman has been following all this action, in san francisco and elsewhere, as the classical music critic for the "san francisco chronicle." >> one thing they all have in common is the health care problem. everybody's health care costs are soaring. the system is dysfunctional. >> reporter: kosman says some orchestras have handled the economic crisis better than others. >> it's been a sort of a stress test. orchestras that had their act together had a rough couple of years, and came through the other side. other orchestras found the recession knocked the wind right out of them. >> reporter: san francisco may be one of the healthy ones. it is doing well, but not sharing, says david gaudry, who plays viola. >> the budget for the san francisco symphony over the last four years-- the length of our previous contract-- increased by about 29%, but the musicians' share in that only increased 4% per year. so our share of the budget is shrinking all the time. >> reporter: the 105 members of the symphony earn an average of about $165,000 a year. the union says it's a little less. they get ten weeks' vacation, health care, and a pension. but they say they need more to stay close to los angeles, chicago, and other top orchestras. those salaries and the strike evoked varying reactions among symphony patrons. >> i believe any work is honorable, and if you get over $100,000, you're almost in the rich category, according to obama. >> i think they have the right to strike. it's a very expensive city to live in, compared to where we come from on the east coast. >> reporter: bassoon player rob weir says his fellow musicians are the cream of the crop, and earn every penny. >> this is a job where every time we go on stage, we're judged, written about, and critiqued. we hold ourselves to an extremely high standard. >> reporter: like musicians in other cities, the players here say the symphony organization hides its books, and pays its executives too much. conductor thomas got $2.4 million in 2010, the nation's top salary for a conductor. >> we're under some stress, but we are not in jeopardy. san francisco is a wonderful place. 8,000 to 10,000 people a week come to hear our concerts. >> reporter: this week, the only place you could hear them was on the street, where a brass quintet of union members played for free. both sides are hanging tough, and no one is predicting how long this work stoppage will last. >> woodruff: online, spencer blogs about his own debut at san francisco's symphony hall, as a reporter with a clarinet. >> ifill: finally tonight, the tale of a top-secret town with a top-secret mission, and the women who made history there. ray suarez has our book conversation. >> suarez: during the mid 1940s thousands of young women got offers of good-paying jobs working on some sort of government project in the south. they were told their efforts would lead to a quicker end to world war ii, but they were told little else. they worked as secretaries and nurses, chemists and technicians, all the while not knowing the real purpose of their jobs. to enrich fuel for the first atomic bomb ever used in combat. denise kiernan tells their story in the book "the girls of the atomic city: the untold story of the women who helped win world war ii." she's a journalist who has written extensive about american history and joins us now. untold story, already. i mean, whether it's albert einstein or edward teller or robert oppenheimer, even harry truman. this has been a man's story all along. >> it really has. it's also a story that's often told from the top down, from the position of knowing and decision-making down, as opposed to from the perspective of people who were crucial and invaluable to the success of the project. but didn't necessarily have any idea what the larger picture was. >> suarez: again and again i had to remind myself while reading this book how circumscribed the lives of women were in 1943. you're reading it with your 2013 head. you have to remember, oh, yeah, they couldn't do this. they couldn't do that in so many cases. >> in so many cases. in one respect, it was such a time of liberation for women, world war ii, because so many men were away fighting, opportunities opened up for them that had never existed before to work in plants, to work with farm machinery, to work as welders. but at the same time, you know, for example, jane one of the women i profile in the book, this was a very bright young woman who wanted to study engineering and just got a tap on the shoulder when she went to matriculate at the university of tennessee and was hold i'm sorry girls don't study that. then she went on to be a statistician for the manhattan project. limiting and expanding at once almost. >> suarez: cumulatively, your women give us a portrait of womanhood in america in 1943, some educated, some not. some rural, some urban, some of immigrant stock. some of long-time american stock. it was really the crowd you put together gave us a chance to look into all these different lives. >> it was something that i really worked to do because i interviewed so many women and i, of course, interviewed a number of men as well who had lived and worked in oak ridge tennessee during world war ii. and i did want to have as many perspectives as possible on this story so, yes, some of the women are 18-year-olds with just a high school education recruited out of diners in tennessee. others are, you know, nurses from chicago, you know, with a certain amount of education. you know, another is a chemist, you know, the degree from the university of north carolina. so i wanted to be able to show all of those perspectives and enter the story of the manhattan proceed jeblght from all those different points of view. >> suarez: we are reminded again and again how peculiar this was, to bring together thousands of people from all over the place to a place that really didn't even exist yet. it was like mushrooms coming up after spring rain, a city just comes out of the mud. all strangers to each other. but they couldn't talk to each other about what they were doing. >> um-hum. this is not a town that was designated or repurposed for the war effort. this was a town that did not exist before the war. and they bring in all of these people, you know. it started in 1942 the government thought, oh, we'll probably have... we'll plan for about 13,000. by mid 1945 less than two years later, a town with 75,000 residents, operating 24 hours a day, using more electricity than new york city, and with one of the ten largest bus systems in the entire country and it's not on a map. yes, you have all these people there together in this confined space spending all this time together but the most natural question, well, what do you do? is the one thing you're never supposed to ask. where are you from was sort of the cadence you would hear everywhere because that was safe. where are you from? >> suarez: they were pioneering ways of refining radioactive material. weren't they? >> yeah. the machines that they used to enrich uranium or decorate different ice owe types of uranium had really just been created just recently and had never been done anywhere near on this scale. so it was a completely, just a really completely brand new endeavor. >> suarez: they didn't find out until the end what they were doing when the bomb is actually detonated. but did this experience change the life tra jek er to of these women? did they go on to have different 1940, 1960, 1970s than they might have otherwise because they were in oak ridge. >> that's a very enter question. one of the things that did happen to a lot of them is, you know, we were talking about before having all those people in such a confined space. a lot of people ended up married. so some women shifted over to being housewives. others stayed in the plants working as chemists. one became a librarian for one of the plants. and she probably would have had a future as, you know, still working at that diner in tennessee. the young coal miner's daughter from schenn and dough a always thought she would just be a secretary who got married and stayed in her hometown and she saw a much greater part of the world because of that. so a variety of opportunities and perhaps what was most surprising for them was that this town that really didn't have any post war plan, for many of them became home for now going on 70 years. >> suarez: if you were a young adult in the mid '40s, you're what in your 90s now? just like world war ii veterans who are disappearing from among us, are the girls of atomic city also harder to find than they were just a short time ago? >> they are even just in the last several years. and the window on this world -- and by that i mean our access to this moment in time via the experiences and conversations we can have with people who actually lived through it -- is shrinking so rapidly. the youngest of my girls right now is about 88 years old. others are 94 and 96. so there really is a limited amount of time and decreasing every month the number of people we have that we can talk to about these experiences. >> suarez: the girls of atomic city, the untold story of the women who helped win world war ii. denise kiernan, thanks. >> thank you very much. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day. the u.s. supreme court considered the very definition of marriage in a challenge to a california law banning same sex marriage. and the republican governor of north dakota signed legislation banning most abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. >> ifill: online, an award- winning scientist shares the secrets of his success. hari sreenivasan has more. >> sreenivasan: for biologist edward o. wilson, the scientific process includes daydreaming and deep thinking. he writes about that in his new book, "letters to a young scientist." find that on our science page. join our live chat tomorrow with the author of "pandora's lunchbox." find the details on our home page. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. gwen? >> ifill: and that's the newshour for tonight. on wednesday, from our american graduate series, rapper gza uses hip-hop music to turn underperforming high school students into young scientists. i'm gwen ifill. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. we'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. thank you, and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf railway. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> this is "bbc world news." funding of this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation of new york, stowe, vermont, and honolulu, newman's own foundation, united healthcare, union bank, and fidelity investments. >> this is what a personal economy looks like. as life changes, fidelity can help you readjust your investments along the way, refocus as careers change and kids head off to college, and revisit your plan as retirement gets closer. today,r you are fidelity's guidance can help fine-tune your personal economy. fidelity investments -- turn here. >> at union bank, our relationship managers work hard to know your business, offering specialized solutions and capital to help you meet your growth objectives. tailoredexpertise and solutions for small businesses and major corporations. what can we do for you? >> and now, "bbc world news." this is "bbc world news america" reporting from washington. a hot debate over same-sex marriage. american public opinion has moved rapidly in favor but now the supreme court must rule on this issue. italy's highest court overturns the acquittal of command and knocks in the death of for british roommate. in the deathknox of her british roommate. welcome to our viewers on public television in america and around the globe. same-sex marriage has ignited a debate in countries around the world. today, it took stage at the british supreme court. at issue 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.