The other day my pals at the Federalist ran a piece by Tully Borland, an associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University, titled “Why Alabamans Should Vote for Roy Moore.” Mind you, that’s not “Why an Alabaman Might Vote for Moore”—this was not an explainer, or a reported piece. Borland teaches in Arkansas, so presumably it wasn’t a personal exploration of his own thinking process as an Alabama voter. No, it was an apologia making a philosophical, affirmative case for Moore, on the merits.

As you might imagine, it attracted a great deal of notice.

Borland’s arguments were . . . interesting? His very first argument was that Moore’s penchant for dating/pursuing/assaulting teenage girls is not uncommon and is perfectly justified as a mode of family-formation:

Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.