Friends, I live in a mountainous state that prides itself on its somewhat libertarian inclinations (which, in all honesty, don't pan out in elections. We're solidly red. We just like to think we're libertarians. Way to go, Montana, you're such rebels).

Anyway. I got my absentee ballot in the mail and have been looking into candidates for my state's supreme court. At first, I was leaning towards a candidate who looked to be somewhat liberal (although of course judges run as nonpartisan candidates). This is important because I care about gay marriage becoming a Thing That Happens in my state. However, Mr.Infinium pointed out to me that our state is actually so libertarian that we changed our state constitution to define who could marry. So that's not something the state supreme court will address anyway. But then! As I was researching this candidate's opponent (call him Candidate 2 because I'm not creative), I saw an allegation on Candidate 2's website that Candidate 1 had, just 2 years ago, written the sole dissenting opinion in an appeal concerning the rape of a 16-year-old by a 37-year-old (in my state, this is not statutory rape, but it was rape). The court had previously excluded evidence of sexually intimate conversations between the young woman and the man as part of the assailant's defense. Candidate 1 apparently thought these conversations should be fair game for the 37-year-old "I think raping 16-year-olds is neat" defendant's defense.

No.

That's a line I have to draw. Montana already has some problems with judges not taking sexual assault seriously (anyone remember the kerfuffle concerning Todd Baugh?) We're not going to play this game again. And balls, if I hadn't dug around for a bit I would have voted for Candidate 1 because he seemed like a good guy.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the punchline to my ramble is, but I wanted to share how angry it made me that this candidate had this crap hidden in his voting history.