On July 7, Arkansas and Missouri became the first two states to ban the use of the pesticide dicamba. In the age-old struggle between farmers and weeds, dicamba is the newest weapon in a farmer’s arsenal. The way a lot of farming works these days is big companies, like Monsanto, genetically modify seeds so that they are resistant to certain pesticides, like dicamba. But the pesticide has ravaged acres of farmland, killing off crops that are not resistant to its fatal chemicals. In response, states are beginning to temporarily ban the use of dicamba. Read on to learn more about dicamba and the legal issues that have cropped up around its use: 

Seeds of the Conflict

Many farmers have begun planting dicamba-resistant seeds, particularly farmers in the Midwest. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, 1.5 million of the roughly 3 million acres of soybeans planted in the state are Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant soybeans.

While nearly half of soybean farms in Arkansas are full of dicamba-resistant seeds, more than half of them are full of seeds that are not resistant to the pesticide. This is where the problem begins. Dicamba began drifting into fields planted with non-resistant seeds, killing off many plants that were not genetically modified to withstand the pesticide. When this started happening many farmers took their complaints to the Arkansas State Plant Board.

The Plant Board is a state run entity whose mission is to provide “information and unbiased enforcement of laws and regulations” that have to do with agriculture in Arkansas. They received enough complaints that the state governments of Missouri and Arkansas had to take action. Both states have banned dicamba use between July 11 and November 7. The Arkansas ruling states:

Many other instances of exposure of non-target crops being exposed to dicamba have been reported and this situation poses a grave threat to the farm economy of Arkansas and therefore the public interest requires taking action to prevent unintentional exposure of non-target crops to dicamba. Therefore, the Board finds that there is imminent peril to the public health, safety and welfare that requires adoption of emergency regulations and that the regulation should take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.

Missouri released a similar statement that stopped the sale or use of dicamba. Missouri’s ban, which includes any product with dicamba in it, will last longer than Arkansas’, lasting until December 1.

This federal action follows a years-long struggle between farmers and weeds, pesticides and plants–and even farmer and farmer.

What is Dicamba?

Dicamba is not a new pesticide. In fact, it was devised in 1958, cooked up by the chemical company BASF. And it is not the only pesticide that farmers use. Roundup, an incredibly toxic weed killer, was once a favorite of farmers. Seed companies manufactured genetically modified seeds that were “Roundup-ready,” and could withstand the toxic pesticides.

Roundup seemed like a good solution for a while. Rather than losing crops to weeds or having to go out and eliminate every weed by hand, Roundup would do the work for you. It was an easy solution, but it did not last long. Weeds began evolving, and developed resistance to Roundup. Thus, farmers began looking for new pesticides that paired with new genetically modified seeds.  

In the Arkansas government’s Emergency Rule, which temporarily bans the use of dicamba, it recognizes the benefits of pesticides. The rule states:

Pesticides are valuable to the State’s agricultural production and to the protection of man and the environment from insects, rodents, weeds and other forms of life which may be pests; but it is essential to the public health and welfare that they be regulated to prevent adverse effects on human life and the environment.

First Signs of Resistance

It all began with a weed called pigweed, a group of weeds which became resistant to most pesticides. Pigweed also spreads like wildfire. “You get one plant in your field, and that one plant can produce more than a million seeds. Many of the seeds become new plants that can choke your fields,” said Steve Inskeep of NPR. Some farmers would rip it from the ground when they saw it. Others resorted to spraying dicamba.

For the 2016 growing season, Monsanto released a new dicamba spray that was less prone to drifting. Old dicamba sprays would vaporize and spread to other farmers’ land. If it drifted to a farm full of non-resistant seeds, the farmer’s plants would wither and die.

The new drift-averse dicamba spray has not been approved by the EPA and Monsanto told farmers not to use other drift-prone sprays, due to the problems that arose from its use. 

Farmers were fined as much as $1,000 for using the illegal spray before the ban went into effect. A steep price, but when their entire yield is at risk of being killed by a weed, some farmers decided to cut their losses. According to The Progressive Farmer, “The Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that it executed federal search warrants at several southeastern Missouri locations as part of an investigation into alleged misuse or misapplication of dicamba onto herbicide-tolerant soybeans and cotton.”

Drift is nothing new to farmers. Other pesticides have had these problems before. But in the past, farmers would just talk it out to settle the problem. With the onset of dicamba, farmers have taken their complaints to the state. 

Arkansas Bans Dicamba

Some farmers purchased dicamba-resistant seeds, but many others did not. Their crops are starting to die off at alarming rates, and it is believed that dicamba is largely to blame.

Many crops, including soybeans, cotton, and corn, die when they are exposed to dicamba. The leaves of the plants curl and pucker, leaving farmers with a loss on their investment.  

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported:

As of noon Wednesday, the Plant Board, a division of the state Department of Agriculture, had received 551 complaints of damage to soybeans, cotton, vegetables and fruit, up from 25 complaints four weeks ago. The increasing numbers led [Governor Asa] Hutchinson to sign on to a 120-day emergency ban on the sale and use of dicamba.

Terry Walker, the Plant Board’s director, said in an interview with Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the government had a right to protect the farmers who had not bought dicamba-resistant seeds and who were experiencing adverse effects because of other farmers who were using an illegal pesticide.

The Plant Board also requested an increase in fines. Their request was approved. Beginning on August 1, fines for farmers caught using dicamba will rise from $1,000 to $25,000.

A Pesticide Worth Killing For?

The main controversy surrounding dicamba has been the effect the pesticide has on crops. But one case escalated to the point of murder.

In 2016, farmers began noticing an increase in damages to crops that were not dicamba-resistant. More than 200,000 acres of fruits and vegetables, including soybeans, tomatoes, watermelon, and peaches, took a hit. In a year that was already one of the leanest since 2002, this extra damage was not a welcome sight.

Mike Wallace, a farmer in Arkansas, started noticing a decline in his yield. His crops were dying, and it looked like dicamba was to blame. After complaining to the Plant Board, Wallace took matters into his own hands. He called up Allan Curtis Jones, a 26-year-old farmer from Arbyrd, Missouri. The two argued over the phone and eventually met in person. The meeting, according to Modern Farmer, did not go well:

Wallace grabbed Jones by the arm during the argument, Jones pulled out a gun and shot the older man, who was unarmed. Jones’ cousin called 911 and deputies found Wallace dead by the side of the road when they arrived.

Jones was arraigned last November and was released on a $150,000 bail.

Is Dicamba Legal in Other States?

Dicamba is very toxic and thus highly regulated.

The EPA has approved a list of 34 states (including Arkansas and Missouri) where dicamba can be registered to be used on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans. The EPA has also approved a special strain of dicamba, Xtendimax, that can be used on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans.

Xtendimax “is designed to be the industry’s lowest volatility dicamba,” according to its manufacturer, meaning it is less likely to evaporate. The problem with other dicamba formulas was they would evaporate once sprayed, and float to nearby fields, some of which were not planted with dicamba-resistant seeds. This new formula, which still requires farmers to follow a list of precautions in order to ensure they are adhering to safe practices, was designed to combat the drifting problems many farmers were seeing.

Next Steps

For farmers in Arkansas and Missouri, the next steps will be to untangle the complaints, and to closely examine dicamba’s potential problems and opportunities. Bob Scott, professor and weed scientist at the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, recently told CropLife, “Going into the fall, we’re really going to have to look at drift complaints, categorize and narrow them down, and try to figure out what’s going on here to determine whether we can use this technology or not.”

Scott said that some farms that were following the rules were still being investigated because their neighbors reported what looked like dicamba-related damage. That could mean a variety of things. Perhaps the dicamba is drifting farther than farmers previously thought it could. Maybe the approved methods of dicamba use are not as safe as was once thought. Whatever the answer ends up being, a thorough investigation will likely be conducted in the coming months. 

Conclusion

Dicamba has led to a lose-lose situation for farmers in Arkansas and Missouri. The farmers who did not buy genetically modified seeds saw losses because their crops could not withstand the illegal use of dicamba. The farmers who did buy dicamba-resistant seeds are now barred from using the powerful pesticide because of the new Emergency Rule. Their options are limited. Some plausible options are they can either pull weeds by hand, try other pesticides, or hope that the weeds do not kill too many of their crops. For now, farmers in Arkansas and Missouri must resist using dicamba, unless they accept the hefty fine–or worse. 

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dicamba: A Look at the “Deadly” Pesticide appeared first on Law Street.

What’s for dinner tonight? Perhaps steamed corn, infused with some delicious dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Or maybe, if you’re feeling bold, you’ll eat some tofu bites containing glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified in March as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Corn, soy, sugar, papayas, milk, zucchini—the list goes on; the number of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is multiplying. The U.S. House of Representative’s decision on Thursday to pass a law that would block states from mandating GMO labels only contributes to the danger that these GMO or genetically engineered (GE) foods inflict on farmers, on the environment, and on consumers.

So what are GMOs exactly, and why are they causing such a scene on Capitol Hill? Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals that are genetically altered to exhibit traits that are not natural, primarily a resistance to pesticides and herbicides. It may sound brilliant to have developed crops that can withstand the chemicals necessary to cultivate large amounts, but GMOs are often untested, require dangerous chemicals in their farming, and may be a threat to organic foods and to the environment. In the United States, GMO foods require no pre-market testing. Unlike with drug production, where there is mandatory testing on animals, mandatory human clinical trials, mandatory tests of carcinogenicity, fetal impact, neurological impact, and at least some limited allergy testing, none of those steps are required for these crops.

The American Medical Association has stated that mandatory testing should be required before GE foods and ingredients are introduced on the market, but lawmakers continue to ignore medical research centers, farmers, and constituents who oppose or at least want labels on GMOs. Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods for consumers but unfortunately these three states are the exception, not the rule. Last week, a majority of Representatives voted in favor of a law that prevents states from mandating GMO labels, stating that labeling GMO foods is “misleading.” Supporters of the bill said that labeling foods that contain GMOs sends a message to consumers that the products are risky, and that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GMOs are not dangerous. However, that information is based on testing by scientists who are funded and influenced by the companies who own GMOs. Opponents of the bill called banning the labeling of GMOs “an infringement of the public’s right to know what’s in their food.”

Currently, 64 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs, including all 28 nations of the European Union, Russia, and China. Our lack of GMO labels is not only causing us to fall behind most other developed countries, but is also failing the satisfy a vast majority of Americans who support GMO labeling. A total of 92 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled and in the past two years, more than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states.

In 2012, some of America’s most profitable chemical companies teamed up with large food companies to defeat California’s Proposition 37, an initiative that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, PepsiCo, CocaCola, Nestle, and several other companies spent over 45 million dollars to block the legislation. Why? Because keeping consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs can be profitable, and requiring labels would allow consumers to question what they’re consuming before they buy. The companies that own GMO seeds, which are patented, sell their seeds to farmers who then buy herbicides from the same companies who also own the chemicals. This brilliant business model is racking up millions for these corporations, but is causing people to consume more and more dangerous herbicides.

Another concerning symptom is that weeds are becoming resistant to the hazardous chemicals. Genetically engineered crops are designed to survive weed killers. Corporations like Monsanto that create these herbicides and pesticides claim that herbicide use has decreased since the introduction of GE crops; however, before GE crops were cultivated, weeds resistant to Roundup did not exist. There are now 14 known species of Roundup-resistant weeds in the U.S. alone, known as “super weeds.” Super weeds have been reported on half of all U.S. farms and cost farmers millions of dollars a year to control. With more weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, farmers now have to spray larger quantities of even more toxic herbicides on their crops to kill weeds, like 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d), a component of the poisonous Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War. GMOs intensify the problem of herbicide use and create more super weeds that are immune to harsh chemicals, disrupt the environment, and contaminate water systems.

In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. The panel pointed to chemicals, primarily herbicides in our air, water, soil, and food as the primary cause of this increased cancer rate. Later that same summer, the journal Pediatrics reported in a peer-reviewed study that there is a direct correlation between pesticide exposure and increased ADHD diagnoses. In 2011 a study revealed that the insecticide in GMO corn was detected in the umbilical cord blood of pregnant women. With 90 percent of soy and 85 percent of corn now genetically engineered, and super weeds on the rise leading to harsher chemicals being used on our food, GMO consumers are being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals. And without GMO labels, shoppers have no idea if the foods they are eating are a part of that group.

Congress’s decision last week to block any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops proves that corporate influence in Washington is taking away our right to choose what we consume. Genetically modified foods can and should be labeled, and Congress has an obligation to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who support the right to know what they are consuming via GMO labels. The FDA’s Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act states that the consumer has a right to know when something is added to food that changes it in ways a consumer would likely not recognize, and that indicates labeling should be required. Just like juice from concentrate, wild versus farmed, country of origin, and many other mandatory labels we see on our foods, GMOs should also be visible, since the chemicals that come with them are not. We have a right to know and a right to choose. It’s time to question whether the FDA and Congress are here to protect us, the people, or to protect a handful of chemical companies that want to keep us in the dark.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GMO Labeling: The American People Have A Right To Know appeared first on Law Street.

The minimum wage was first created to ensure that workers are protected from being underpaid for their work; however, given that national and local costs of living have varied over time, whether or not the minimum wage amounts are fair has been the main pillar of the  national debate for some time. Read on to learn about the minimum wage and all of the controversies and debates surrounding it.

Current Minimum Wage Laws

The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 is a law passed by Congress that requires employees to be paid at least $7.25 per hour. The act took effect in 2009 as an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This law only applies to jobs that are under the purview of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tipped workers may only be paid less than $7.25 an hour if their hourly wages plus tips match or exceed $7.25.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is a federal law that Congress passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Federal laws passed under that power are only effective if they pertain to an area that affects commerce between multiple states. Therefore, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Fair Minimum Wage Act only regulate wages in businesses that are involved in interstate commerce. Businesses that are not sufficiently involved in interstate commerce are not regulated by the federal law but may still be regulated by state or local minimum wage laws. If there are state or local minimum wage laws in effect in the area a (non-interstate commercial) business operates then those laws determine the minimum wage employees of such a business can be paid.

State minimum wage laws are very variable.

The map below represents the minimum wage in a number of states. Green indicates a state minimum wage that is higher than federal minimum wage, yellow shows states with no minimum wage laws, blue states have the same minimum wage as the federal minimum wage, and red states have minimum wage laws lower than the federal minimum wage.

Map of minimum wage variations by state, courtesy of the U.S. Department of Labor via Wikipedia.

According to the Department of Labor, the laws are interpreted as follows:

Federal minimum wage law supersedes state minimum wage laws where the federal minimum wage is greater than the state minimum wage. In those states where the state minimum wage is greater than the federal minimum wage, the state minimum wage prevails.

So why do we still have separate federal and state minimum wage laws? One reason is, of course, politics. The states that have lower minimum wage laws keep them on the books in part to protest what they see as too high of a federal minimum wage. There’s also a more practical application: there are certain workers, such as seasonal workers or those on small farms, who are exempt from the federal laws. In some cases, the state laws may still offer some parameters for those workers.

What are arguments for keeping the federal minimum wage as is?

Supporters of the current federal minimum wage argue that raising the minimum wage will diminish the job market in an economy that is already suffering. They argue that raising the minimum wage to benefit the poor is a shortsighted strategy. Since a majority of the poor (60 percent) are unemployed, raising the minimum wage only makes it more difficult for them to find jobs because it raises the value that they have to demonstrate in order to justify being hired. Moreover, most of the people receiving minimum wage pay are above the nation’s median income so most of the funds workers receive from a higher minimum wage won’t go to the impoverished.

Supporters of keeping the minimum wage law where it is also worry that the costs of a higher minimum wage would be passed on to the consumers, who may be struggling themselves. They reason that the money has to come from somewhere, and in many cases it would come from an increase in the price of goods. In general, it would make it more expensive for employers to hire employees, and have negative ramifications throughout many parts of the economy.

Another argument against raising the minimum wage stems from an idea about the purpose of the minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are often viewed as “stepping stones” for young people, or those looking to get back on their feet–not jobs for those who need to raise families or be permanently employed in that particular place of business. Those who subscribe to this argument tend to worry that with a higher minimum wage, these jobs become permanent paths rather than just stepping stones, and younger people will no longer be able to get their foot in the door.

What are arguments for increasing the minimum wage?

Those who argue in favor of increasing the current federal minimum wage argue that it does not even pay enough to keep a family of three above the poverty line. The average cost of living has increased by leaps and bounds, especially in larger cities. The minimum wage has not increased proportionately with inflation or the pay of the average worker. Today, the minimum wage is insufficient to keep a full-time working parent and one child out of poverty. At a bare minimum the federal minimum wage should be enough to keep a working parent and her child above the poverty line. Along the same lines, supporters of increasing the minimum wage point out that because those who work minimum wage jobs have such a difficult time making ends meet, many of them have to get some sort of government assistance, which is also a big problem for the economy.

That is why the Obama Administration is advocating for legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. This change would raise America’s GDP, and reduce income disparities between several population demographics.

Conclusion

The minimum wage, and its many derivations across the states, will always be a contentious and politicized issue. The actual economic implications of raising or lowering the minimum wage are difficult to glean, and the arguments are sharp. That being said, the minimum wage debate is far from over.

Resources

Primary 

US Senate: Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007

Department of Labor: Minimum Wage

Department of Labor: History of Changes to the Minimum Wage Law

Department of Labor: Minimum Wage Laws in the States

Additional

Forbes: Why Raising the Minimum Wage Kills Jobs

Washington Post: Economists Agree: Raising the Minimum Wage Reduces Poverty

The New York Times: Raise That Wage

The White House: Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address

Atlantic: Minimum Wage Was Once Enough to Keep a Family of Three Out of Poverty

Economic Policy Institute: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Give Working Families, and the Overall Economy, a Much-Needed Boost

CNN: Raising Minimum Wage Won’t Lower Poverty

America’s Best Companies: Five Important Exceptions to Know Regarding Minimum Wage

The New York Times: Raising Minimum Wage Would Ease Income Gap but Carries Political Risks

Entrepreneur: Listen to Small Business: Don’t Increase the Minimum Wage

Deseret News: In Our Opinion: Don’t Raise the Minimum Wage

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debating Minimum Wage in America appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning folks! Who’s enjoying this polar vortex 2.0? Not me!

To all of you in the Law Street D.C. office, is this really what you all do on a snow day? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks matthewstasoff.com!

Anyway! A bit south of D.C., exciting things are happening for the gays. At least, the gays who want to get married. Newly elected Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring is announcing that he finds the state’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. As a result, Virginia will ask a federal court to strike it down, alongside two same-sex couples.

Am I the only one who finds it a tad bit amusing that Virginia is going to court against itself? Anyway.

This is very exciting news! If the ban on same-sex marriage in Virginia is lifted, gay couples all across the state will gain access to the gazillion benefits afforded to legally married couples. Not to mention, they can stop navigating the legal minefield that results from having your marriage recognized by the federal government, but not by the state government. That shit’s a mess.

In order to win his case, Herring will base his argument on the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, which struck down parallel laws banning interracial marriage. According to Herring, Loving didn’t just open doors for interracial couples, but for couples of all types. In his view, Loving found that couples have a fundamental right to marriage itself, and that right cannot be withheld based on a couple’s race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Pretty exciting stuff.

But I’m not just excited because, obviously, yay for civil rights and an end to marriage discrimination. (Also, let’s not forget that marriage is a pretty problematic institution all to itself. Grain of salt here, people.)

I’m also super pumped because this law affects two of my dear friends—Emilia Jones and Hannah Martin.

Aren’t they the cutest? They’re the cutest. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

I met Emi and Hannah back in 2010. We all went to NYU together, and we were all big lezzies. Naturally, we ran in the same circles.

Not really. I actually met Emi once at an LGBT club meeting in September 2009, and thought she seemed cool but was too shy to talk to her. (Socially awkward lesbian moment, over here.) The following semester, we wound up having two classes together and seeing each other literally every single day of the week, so we became fast friends.

Guys, Emi was awesome. She was my college bestie that year, and I was totally bummed when she graduated.

But! Emi’s life got all kinds of fabulous when she graduated from NYU. The state of New York legalized gay marriage in June 2011 — just in time for Gay Pride — and in July, she married her longtime lady love, Hannah.

They are so cute I can’t even handle it. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Anyway, they got married, I babysat their awesome cat in Brooklyn during their honeymoon, and then a few months later, they randomly moved to a farm in Virginia.

When I say randomly, I mean RANDOMLY. It literally felt like they were here one day, and gone the next. I secretly wondered if they were running from the CIA or something. Probably not. Anyway, they run Heart Moss Farm now, and they’re super happy, and they’re super cute.

With their adorable dog, Zach. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But! Being married in Virginia is complicated business, as Emi told me this morning.

“We recently re-filed our 2011 taxes — after my lawyer aunt who works for the IRS suggested it — when we were forced to file as married for NYC and NY state taxes but single federally. When we got our refund, it was A LOT of money,” Emi said. “If Va. doesn’t at least recognize gay marriage, we’ll have to file separate for Va. but joint federally, which essentially means you pay tons and tons of extra taxes. It is nasty business, especially when we are not making a lot as it is.”

So, basically, if Herring succeeds in his quest to get Virginia to recognize gay marriages, Emi and Hannah will be in a much better financial situation. And that’s awesome.

Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But there are other benefits to be had as well. Most of these run along the lines of basic respect for an individual’s safety and well being–like being allowed to visit each other and make decisions if one of them lands in the hospital. That shit’s a whole lot easier when there aren’t a bunch of contradictory, inconsistent laws arguing over whether you’re legally married or not.

So basically, we’re all rooting for Attorney General Herring over here, and also for Hannah and Emi. We’ll check back in with them once the ruling goes through.

In the mean time, all you Virginians should check out Heart Moss Farm’s pasture-raised chickens at your local farmer’s market. Yay for supporting queer businesses!

What do you think about Herring’s actions and Virginia’s gay marriage ban? Tell us in the comments!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Hannah R. Winsten]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Look at This Adorable Couple Who Will Be Super Pumped if Virginia’s Gay Marriage Ban is Lifted appeared first on Law Street.