In Defense of Judge Roy Moore

If one reads the original Washington Post article on Judge Moore’s supposed harassment of underage “girls” with an open mind, one will conclude that Judge Moore is completely innocent, and that he is the victim of Fake News.

First, a few definitions. I shall call a human female who is under the age of consent, a “girl.” I shall call a human female who is of the age of consent, a “woman.” I shall also define the “age of consent” to be what the legal code of the state of Alabama, both in the 1970s and today, to be the age of consent: 16. This age is above the biological age of consent, which is puberty: menstruation for a woman, pubic hair for a man. In medieval canon law, a woman was thus of the age of consent around 12. In most of current-day Mexico, this is still the age of consent. I am a 70-year-old college professor, and to me, a woman under the age of 30 seems like a young girl. I personally regard none of my female students as women; all are children in my eyes. But I shall reject both the biological age of consent, and my own personal view of the age of consent, and adopt Alabama’s age of consent.

Now read the Post article and assume that the reporters wrote the exact truth about what four human females told them (a big assumption, I grant). Then three of the four claim that Roy Moore dated them when they were women, not girls. And not only did they themselves consent to dating Moore, their families consented to their dating Moore. (Actually, according to one, her family withdrew consent, after which Moore ceased to date her). Furthermore, according to these three women, Moore never went beyond kissing and hugging. Which are the only acts a Christian man is permitted to engage in with a woman not his wife. According to these three women, Moore consistently acted as the Christian he claims to have been, and claims to be now.

More