Finally I've been able to find information on the individuals running for the Magisterial District Judge race on the Northside (Wards 21-25).

Why do I care?  Well, I gained some interest after I realized how many of my neighbors were supporting the candidate they know without any real sense of his qualifications beyond the fact that he's an attorney.  I can see why people use this criteria as we all want to support our friends and, frankly, finding information is a struggle.  Candidates at this level don't have fancy websites, twitter or so forth.

I had something stuffed in my door today from a Republican running for the office.  His name is Dan Styche who is a State Deputy Constable.  I'm not clear on what that means, but apparently is makes him a lawman and able to claim 12 years experience working in the Magistrate's Offices.

That led me to the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania site which has FIVE candidates listed. 

So what does a district magistrate do?  I'm not sure.  I know they take care of the first steps in a criminal process.  They hear tax cases. I can't find a really good description of what they do.

Our of the five people running in my area, Derwin Rushing is an attorney.  Karen McLellan is a police officer.  We already mentioned the constable.  I think Dean Birdy is also an attorney.   I can't find anything about Jackie Lynn Hoffman. 

I did discover that Dean Birdy and Dan Styche are listed as committeefolks for the Allegheny County Democrat committee.  That's odd that Styche is running as a Republican then.  His literature says Democat. 

So I frankly have no good information in this race.  I have some info that makes me disinclined to vote for one candidate, but without more details it is hard to know who my best alternative is.  It is hard to know who is qualified when you aren't sure what they do.  Clearly, the two lawyers and the police officer have a leg up when it comes to actually knowing the law. 

Frustrating. I'll keep digging.

Kerry and Lucy are in Saturday's Pet Tales column in the Post-Gazette.  Awesomeness! 

Mother's Day is around the corner.  Order your flowers now.  Lucy says yes!

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09122/967140-62.stm

Today's Post-Gazette includes a letter from Jeffrey O. Mast of Cecil.  Mast supports the secular equality of the LGBTQ community, but draws the line at religious rites.

I was with the gay activists when what they sought was equal protection under the law. Now it seems the gay activists wish to commandeer the word "marriage." Unless I am wrong, "marriage" is a religious "rite," not "right."

It appears the "slippery slope" is in full effect. If we continue with the slippery slope, in five years we will be debating whether a church leader should be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple.

Mast is a proponent of the separate but equal approach to civil rights.  A friend of mine asked me a similar question about whether a "secular marriage" using some other term would satisfy me.  I told her that I have no desire to force any religious group to marry me, but the claim that marriage is a religious institution is deceptive.  The term marriage is inextricably intertwined with the civil institution and clearly a part of the fabric of society.  You can't just parse the language because you will always end up with two tiers -- gay marriage and "real" marriage. 

Mast's other line of reasoning is that equal rights for the LGBTQ community should not infringe on the religious rights for other people:

 I believe that one's secular rights end where another's secular rights begin. I also believe in equal rights (not rites). Considering the fact that liberals believe that religion and government should be as separate as possible, it baffles me that liberals would insist on appropriating religious terminology.

Why don't religious folks come up with their own special new word and leave secular marriage alone? Hmm.  Seriously, he's playing into the fear that equal rights will destroy religious freedom which is ludicrous.  Lots of things limitt religious freedoms  - tax laws, building inspections, education laws,etc.  Lots of things in society are offensive to one religion or another - consumption of pork/beef, premarital sex, short hair, birth control, female Secretaries of State, etc.  Some you can simply ignore, others you must endure. Taking offense doesn't translate into your rights being violated.  There is no right "not to be offended."

Still, this letter does illustrate a welcome change from the usual gay bashing rhetoric.  Acknowleding that the LGBTQ community deserves equal protection is a good thing.  That's a shift and, I think, evidence that the gay agenda is working!  :-)